If a state were to secede

[MoTown]

Has it occured to you that those against secession are on the wrong side of the issue? Is not the United States of America made up of voluntary states? Do they no longer have the right to become their own sovereign nation if they so choose? If you say no, then I guess you believe divorce should be illegal and anyone who tries to get one should have a bomb dropped on them.

Of course this is an original ideal in which the United States may take pride, but the problem comes weaved within the web of infinite strings attached to such a decision even being taken into consideration. In acknowledgment of the dominant image the United States strives to uphold, it would take some truly influential arguments to reverse the organizational inertia that seems to be increasing at a rate with tendency to raise an eyebrow.

 

[jd4320t]

I like being an American too. I believe this won't ever happen again. If you don't like the way things are now then what is stopping you from leaving? Why should a state have to secede to allow you to move?

No matter what I am staying in the 50 United States.

 

[oldfb]

Has it occured to you that those against secession are on the wrong side of the issue? Is not the United States of America made up of voluntary states? Do they no longer have the right to become their own sovereign nation if they so choose? If you say no, then I guess you believe divorce should be illegal and anyone who tries to get one should have a bomb dropped on them.

I swear I read that it was an ammendment or part of the surrender "documents" that leaving the union is considered an act of treason. Am I nuts or just missmembering?

Now suckseed is a whole different agenda and there are loads of states on their knees for that. U know the old joke IF AT FIRST... have her keep going til she does...badum bump. Ok sorry for the late night bad jokes.

 

[hornadylnl]

I like being an American too. I believe this won't ever happen again. If you don't like the way things are now then what is stopping you from leaving? Why should a state have to sucede to allow you to move?

No matter what I am staying in the 50 United States.

So if the 2A were repealed tomorrow, would you just move? Or would you hope the states would act like they had a pair and demand that all powers not delegated to the federal government through the constitution be returned to the states?

 

[SavageEagle]

I like being an American too. I believe this won't ever happen again. If you don't like the way things are now then what is stopping you from leaving? Why should a state have to secede to allow you to move?

No matter what I am staying in the 50 United States.

I think you missed the point. It's not about a few of us leaving because we don't like how things are going.

It's about a tyrannical Federal Government trying to impose unConstitutional laws on the states and the states having none of it. Then deciding :fawk: you, we're gonna go back to the way it should be. Don't like it? We're leaving. That's what it's about. The Federal Gov. wants to trample over the states and the people? Secession or Revolution is the only other options when they refuse to listen to the people and throw out the Constitution.

If you don't support that, why?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Texas is the only state that has a legal recourse and right to secede. It will never be allowed to happen. Texas is also about the only state with enough military hardware and industry as well as farming to successfully last on their own. There was a really long thread about it on the other forum I frequent, but alas it evades me right now so no link....Did I mention that I LOVE Texas? Oh, and the Dallas/FtWorth liberal area is not really part of Texas, just ask a Texan. But I won't hold that against them, every family has its black sheep.

 

[jd4320t]

I try not to live in the "what ifs". I am an American and will die an American. I have no desire to join any other team. In my opinion any thought, statement or action of leaving our United States and opposing them is an act of treason.

So, like I asked earlier...What is keeping you from leaving now? Is it too good to leave?? I doubt the New Texas would be any better.

 

[hornadylnl]

I try not to live in the "what ifs". I am an American and will die an American. I have no desire to join any other team. In my opinion any thought, statement or action of leaving our United States and opposing them is an act of treason.

So, like I asked earlier...What is keeping you from leaving now? Is it too good to leave?? I doubt the New Texas would be any better.

So our founders are guilty of treason by giving us the ability to throw off a tyranical government? They were smart enough to predict what is happening in our government today. I just don't think they could have ever predicted how bad it currently is. Our current government is much more oppressive than what the King O England ever dreamed of being.

Why should I leave? On the side of the constitution and what our country was founded on. Are they?

 

[squisher]

"American" is just a label. Call me what you will, I want to be FREE above all else.

Free to keep what I earn.
Free to practice or not practice whatever faith.
Free to have an opinion and voice it.
Free to defend myself.
Free to own property.
...(and the list goes on and on)

If it takes secession or threat thereof as a wake-up call to the fed for me to be free, you can call me whatever you want! (Texan, American, Fubarian w/e)

 

[dross]

Let's get straight on "rights" and reality.

Does a state have a right to secede? A better way to ask the question is, "Do the citizens of a state have the right to secede?

The Constitution doesn't give us our rights. We have those when we're born, whether we're born here, in China, in Nazi Germany, or in Iran. By virtue of being human, we have all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, as well as many more rights that aren't mentioned at all. As does any baby born today in Iran.

Our rights may only be abridged righteously through our own actions - like committing a serious crime. Any other abridgement of our rights is tyranny, and it doesn't matter if that abridgement occurs by the pronouncement of a dictator, or by the democratic process, it's still tyranny.

So, rights don't spring forth from the Constitution, the Constitution is just a legal document that tells the government what it may do. Anything that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the government the power to do, it is not allowed to do, according to the Constitution.

The Constitution enumerates certain citizen rights in the Bill of Rights. The concept of a Bill of Rights was controversial at the time of the founding because some argued that if the Constitution spelled out some rights, people bent on tyranny would argue that those were the only rights that existed. This of course has turned out to be exactly what happened. The 9th and 10th amendments were included to placate this argument. One says (I always forget which is which and I don't want to look it up right now) that just because the Constitution specifically mentions some rights doesn't mean that others don't exist, and the other says that any power not specifically granted to the government doesn't belong to the government, but to the States and the people. These amendments are now completely ignored. The last time the socialists were interested in either of these amendments was for the abortion decision 35 years ago.

So, with that context, the only reasonable answer to whether the people have the right to secede, is yes. But, as our founding fathers understood and the southern states found out over 150 years ago, the federal government doesn't much care about our natural rights, much less about the Constitution. Granted, slavery was horrible ground on which to fight for rights, but technically, they should have had the right to secede. (Slavery was always a deal with the devil for the soul of our country, and it came due in the Civil War, where we lost the ability to exercise some of our fundamental rights.)

So, yes, you have the right to secede, but the federal government will never let you exercise it.

Now everything is turned on its head. The federal government operates on the premise that it may do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and that even enumerated rights are not absolute, just an obstacle to be overcome, either by clever legal work, or by brute force.

 

[hornadylnl]

Let's get straight on "rights" and reality.

Does a state have a right to secede? A better way to ask the question is, "Do the citizens of a state have the right to secede?

The Constitution doesn't give us our rights. We have those when we're born, whether we're born here, in China, in Nazi Germany, or in Iran. By virtue of being human, we have all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, as well as many more rights that aren't mentioned at all. As does any baby born today in Iran.

Our rights may only be abridged righteously through our own actions - like committing a serious crime. Any other abridgement of our rights is tyranny, and it doesn't matter if that abridgement occurs by the pronouncement of a dictator, or by the democratic process, it's still tyranny.

So, rights don't spring forth from the Constitution, the Constitution is just a legal document that tells the government what it may do. Anything that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the government the power to do, it is not allowed to do, according to the Constitution.

The Constitution enumerates certain citizen rights in the Bill of Rights. The concept of a Bill of Rights was controversial at the time of the founding because some argued that if the Constitution spelled out some rights, people bent on tyranny would argue that those were the only rights that existed. This of course has turned out to be exactly what happened. The 9th and 10th amendments were included to placate this argument. One says (I always forget which is which and I don't want to look it up right now) that just because the Constitution specifically mentions some rights doesn't mean that others don't exist, and the other says that any power not specifically granted to the government doesn't belong to the government, but to the States and the people. These amendments are now completely ignored. The last time the socialists were interested in either of these amendments was for the abortion decision 35 years ago.

So, with that context, the only reasonable answer to whether the people have the right to secede, is yes. But, as our founding fathers understood and the southern states found out over 150 years ago, the federal government doesn't much care about our natural rights, much less about the Constitution. Granted, slavery was horrible ground on which to fight for rights, but technically, they should have had the right to secede. (Slavery was always a deal with the devil for the soul of our country, and it came due in the Civil War, where we lost the ability to exercise some of our fundamental rights.)

So, yes, you have the right to secede, but the federal government will never let you exercise it.

Now everything is turned on its head. The federal government operates on the premise that it may do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and that even enumerated rights are not absolute, just an obstacle to be overcome, either by clever legal work, or by brute force.

You've said it much better than I ever could. The only thing that I would disagree with is the reason for the South's attempt at secession. I think it was about States Rights. Yes, slavery was a bi product of that and history wants us to believe the south fought so they could keep their slaves. I'm not a civil war historian by any stretch of the imagination but I believe the issue of slavery was only a small part in a whole laundry list of grievances with the Union.

 

[dross]

You've said it much better than I ever could. The only thing that I would disagree with is the reason for the South's attempt at secession. I think it was about States Rights. Yes, slavery was a bi product of that and history wants us to believe the south fought so they could keep their slaves. I'm not a civil war historian by any stretch of the imagination but I believe the issue of slavery was only a small part in a whole laundry list of grievances with the Union.

Thanks for your kind words and for the rep.

I do think that the Civil War was about states' rights, and I absolutely believe that was the reason most southerners fought, especially the average soldier, who did not own slaves, as a general rule.

Yet, the Civil War was fought because the southern states felt their rights were violated by the anti-slavery laws passed by the federal government.

For instance, I think that marijuana laws, other than its transport across state lines, is clearly a matter of state law. Yet the feds have declared it to be federal. If we fought a civil war over this issue it would be about states rights, but the battleground issue would be marijuana.

This makes the issue very murky. Slavery was obviously an abomination, and a mockery of the lofty principles of natural rights this country was founded on. Many of our founders saw this and said it and wrote it. Yet our country as we know it would have never come into existence without that compromise. Thus, the deal with the devil.

If the secession had been about something less horrible than slavery, the South might very well have accomplished secession, or maybe a compromise that would have ensured states' rights to this day. But the deal with the devil came due, and alas, we are paying for it today.

Some things are hard to figure out. Should our founders who opposed slavery taken a stronger stand? Should the South have been allowed to secede? Hard to know what our lives today would look like.

I'll say this: I'd sure like to give following the Constitution a try.

 

[SavageEagle]

Dross, very well put. And as stated below, you must remember the civil war was not over slavery, but it was a part of the reason. It was an indirect reason I should say.

You've said it much better than I ever could. The only thing that I would disagree with is the reason for the South's attempt at secession. I think it was about States Rights. Yes, slavery was a bi product of that and history wants us to believe the south fought so they could keep their slaves. I'm not a civil war historian by any stretch of the imagination but I believe the issue of slavery was only a small part in a whole laundry list of grievances with the Union.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Interesting that after the war of northern aggression, the northern states were allowed to keep their slaves, but the southern slaves were freed......

 

[jedi]

Interesting that after the war of northern aggression, the northern states were allowed to keep their slaves, but the southern slaves were freed......

The winner in any war gets to write HIStory, make all the new rules, and keep the spoils of war.

 

[dross]

Interesting that after the war of northern aggression, the northern states were allowed to keep their slaves, but the southern slaves were freed......

Is this a joking reference to something? You're not really suggesting that slavery was legal in the North after the Civil War, are you?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

You're not really suggesting that slavery was legal in the North after the Civil War, are you?

Umm, yes.

Some people were critical of the proclamation for only freeing some of the slaves. Others, including Frederick Douglass, were jubilant. Douglass felt that it was the beginning of the end of slavery, and that it would act as a "moral bombshell" to the Confederacy. Yet he and others feared that Lincoln would give in to pressure from northern conservatives, and would fail to keep his promise. Despite the opposition, however, the president remained firm. On January 1, 1863, he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. With it he officially freed all slaves within the states or parts of states that were in rebellion and not in Union hands. This left one million slaves in Union territory still in bondage.

 

[Marc]

i would move but i would wait to see if more states would fallow, and if more states did fallow then i would wait to see if the state i live in would fallow and if it does, then no reason to move.

 

[mrjarrell]

Interesting that after the war of northern aggression, the northern states were allowed to keep their slaves, but the southern slaves were freed......

That's because the emancipation proclamation only applied to the Southern states, a much overlooked fact. Especially nowadays.

 

[dross]

Umm, yes.

You are referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order issued by Lincoln, freeing the slaves in the southern states over which the Union had no control. It was a symbolic act until those states were captured and controlled by the Union Army. It was issued during the war.

Lincoln could have issued all the executive orders he wanted about the border states' slaves, and it wouldn't have been legally enforceable because those states were still part of the Union, and subject only to the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, not to executive orders.

Slavery was already illegal in most northern states, with some of the border states being exceptions.

The last Confederate general surrendured in June 1865, and the 13th amendment passed in December of 1865 (pretty darned fast), making slavery illegal everywhere, something Lincoln didn't have the power to do unilaterally.

So yes, technically, the North (border states) could have slaves after the war (between June and December). The way you wrote it sounded a lot different than the five months it took to get an amendment passed and ratified.