Bad Day on Wall Street

[Phishfan]

Just like the South tried to.

Actually they just tried leaving, completely different than replacing.

[Landshark]

Actually they just tried leaving, completely different than replacing.

Exactly.  The North took up arms against them to bring them back.  The key for the South was to fight a defensive war because they couldn't replace their soldiers and the North could.  The biggest mistake they made was trying (and failing) to take Gettysburg as that turned the tide of the war.

[Spider-Dan]

Actually they just tried leaving, completely different than replacing.

Semantics.  "Leaving" (while continuing to occupy the same land) is an attempt to replace the government in that area.  The land that the CSA tried to claim was under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.

Exactly.  The North took up arms against them to bring them back.  The key for the South was to fight a defensive war because they couldn't replace their soldiers and the North could.

I don't know if this is Florida (i.e. the South) talking, but you know who fired first, right?

[badger6]

Semantics.  "Leaving" (while continuing to occupy the same land) is an attempt to replace the government in that area.  The land that the CSA tried to claim was under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.

This country was founded as a federation of independent and sovereign states based on the power of the people. These states delegated a limited degree of power and authority to a central government. Certain states simply wanted to dissolve their union that they voluntarily entered into. States RETAIN all rights NOT delegated to the federal government. The people RETAIN all rights not delegated to the state or to the federal governments. Hence the following :

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Also

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I don't know if this is Florida (i.e. the South) talking, but you know who fired first, right?

The federal government, after being told, did not vacate the land of an independent, free, and sovereign state. Subsequently they were fired upon for their non compliance.

[Landshark]

I don't know if this is Florida (i.e. the South) talking, but you know who fired first, right?

The federal government, after being told, did not vacate the land of an independent, free, and sovereign state. Subsequently they were fired upon for their non compliance.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  If I come home to find someone I don't know in my house, and they don't leave when I tell them to, I will fire on them as well. 

[Pappy13]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  If I come home to find someone I don't know in my house, and they don't leave when I tell them to, I will fire on them as well. 

And if they happen to be cops or the FBI or any other person who might have a good reason to be there, you might be going to prison. Just sayin'. 

[badger6]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  If I come home to find someone I don't know in my house, and they don't leave when I tell them to, I will fire on them as well. 

You better watch your mouth, here comes federal government sympathizer Spiderdan. Just like Steven Seagal twists his opponents bones into dust, Spider will twist your words into an entirely new meaning unknown to you.

3....2.....1......Heeeeeeere's spider!

[Spider-Dan]

Oh, we're flat-out defending the Confederacy now?

The federal government, after being told, did not vacate the land of an independent, free, and sovereign state. Subsequently they were fired upon for their non compliance.

Wrong.  Secession is unconstitutional; if you want to exit the Union, you need to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment (to let you leave), then get 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.  Don't like those terms?  Tough.  That's what you signed up for when you joined the Union.  Every state in this republic either ratified the original Constitution or applied for statehood under it.

South Carolina (or any other state, or combination of them) cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be a sovereign and free nation.

P.S. You probably shouldn't cite anything before 1789 as proof of any point worth making.  We had a government (under the Articles of Confederation) in which states had complete sovereignty and could do whatever the hell they wanted.  It was a complete and total failure.

[badger6]

Oh, we're flat-out defending the Confederacy now?
Wrong.  Secession is unconstitutional; if you want to exit the Union, you need to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment (to let you leave), then get 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.  Don't like those terms?  Tough.  That's what you signed up for when you joined the Union.  Every state in this republic either ratified the original Constitution or applied for statehood under it.

South Carolina (or any other state, or combination of them) cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be a sovereign and free nation.

Of course I'm defending states rights. All states rights, not limited to the Confederacy, but including the Confederacy. I guess if you are under the false impression that slavery was the primary reason for the civil war, you might think otherwise. But to do that would be to deny the facts that show slavery was a very small part of the civil war.

I'll just assume that you're ignoring the words in the Declaration of Independence above. You know the part that says. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them".

Or the part where Lincoln says : " they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Sure seems like the founding fathers thought that if a the people wanted to separate from their government that it was their right to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could even justify our original split from England if that wasn't the case.

[Spider-Dan]

I'll just assume that you're ignoring the words in the Declaration of Independence above. You know the part that says. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them".

As I added, we tried a government where the states could do whatever they wanted.  It failed spectacularly, which is why we got the Constitution in 1789.  As far as your point goes, the very best thing you can say is that the Declaration of Independence (which carries no force of law in the United States of America, and never has) describes the broken ideas that were tried under the Articles of Confederation.

Or the part where Lincoln says : " they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

So let's see:

- on the one hand, one time Lincoln said that people have the right to overthrow their government
- on the other hand, when American citizens tried to overthrow their government, he ordered the United States military to kill them by the thousands

Tough call.

Sure seems like the founding fathers thought that if a the people wanted to separate from their government that it was their right to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could even justify our original split from England if that wasn't the case.

Hey, if you want to say that the colonists were traitors to the Crown, I'd agree.

The point is that anyone who talks of armed revolt against the government is talking about unconstitutional treason and/or sedition.  Now, if you don't care for the Constitution (much like the colonists didn't much care for the Crown), you shouldn't particularly mind such a statement.  But you can't wrap yourself in the colors of Patriotic Defender of the Constitution while you simultaneously say that if you don't like how the elections are going, it's perfectly OK to shoot your way out of the Union.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I guess if you are under the false impression that slavery was the primary reason for the civil war, you might think otherwise.

You are correct.  The civil war was an armed conflict between the advocates of a strong national govement and those who advocated a weak national goverment and greater state attonomy.   

The "state rights" side lost! 

Furthermore the 14th amendment specfically weakened the states rights and gave the federal goverment greater power. 

ALL 37 of the states who were in the union in 1868 have since ratified the amendment. 

[badger6]

As I added, we tried a government where the states could do whatever they wanted.  It failed spectacularly, which is why we got the Constitution in 1789.  As far as your point goes, the very best thing you can say is that the Declaration of Independence (which carries no force of law in the United States of America, and never has) describes the broken ideas that were tried under the Articles of Confederation.

Can you point to specific language in the constitution that SPECIFICALLY prohibits secession ?

So let's see:

- on the one hand, one time Lincoln said that people have the right to overthrow their government
- on the other hand, when American citizens tried to overthrow their government, he ordered the United States military to kill them by the thousands

Tough call.

Tough call how ? Seems he said it more than one time as you claim:

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Maybe "Honest" Abe wasn't so honest and a hypocrite piece of shit. Maybe he just had more guns and resources to win the war and was able to bully the states out of their rights. Maybe he was like Obama and didn't actually give a shit about black people or the issue of slavery. I suspect if the tide of the war had swung the other way, and the south would have won the war, that the issue of states rights and secession would have never been questioned.

Hey, if you want to say that the colonists were traitors to the Crown, I'd agree.

So you agree that they were traitors. But do you agree that their decision to revolt was right or wrong ?

The point is that anyone who talks of armed revolt against the government is talking about unconstitutional treason and/or sedition.  Now, if you don't care for the Constitution (much like the colonists didn't much care for the Crown), you shouldn't particularly mind such a statement.  But you can't wrap yourself in the colors of Patriotic Defender of the Constitution while you simultaneously say that if you don't like how the elections are going, it's perfectly OK to shoot your way out of the Union.

That begs the question. Is there a "natural right of revolution" ? That's kind of a double edged trick question. The United States seems to support other countries and their right to secede from their governments if it fits our agenda or if there is a perceived wrongdoing. So Georgia can secede from the USSR, but Georgia can't secede from the US. Kind of hypocritical don't you think. By the way, secession could exist as a peaceful condition. It doesn't have to be equal to armed revolt, treason, or sedition. I'll look forward for you to point to specific language in the constitution that SPECIFICALLY prohibits secession ?

[badger6]

You are correct.  The civil war was an armed conflict between the advocates of a strong national govement and those who advocated a weak national goverment and greater state attonomy.   

The "state rights" side lost! 

Furthermore the 14th amendment specfically weakened the states rights and gave the federal goverment greater power. 

ALL 37 of the states who were in the union in 1868 have since ratified the amendment. 

The only thing that I would take exception with is that, the "state rights" lost. They in fact did lose the war. However, until man goes extinct this issue will never truly be won or lost. Regardless of the country or government involved, there is no way to lose the natural right of revolution. There will always be people fighting to sever ties from their government. That's the rub, everyone has different ideas regarding what they want out of life and will fight for them.

[Landshark]

And if they happen to be cops or the FBI or any other person who might have a good reason to be there, you might be going to prison. Just sayin'. 

Or if you're a professor who happens to know the President, you might get invited over to the White House for a beer.   

[Spider-Dan]

Can you point to specific language in the constitution that SPECIFICALLY prohibits secession ?

I already pointed to it.  The SCOTUS in Texas vs. White (1869) said that secession (specifically: the legislative act by the State of Texas declaring that they are no longer part of the Union) is unconstitutional.  And according to the Constitution, the SCOTUS determines what is and is not constitutional.

Tough call how ? Seems he said it more than one time as you claim:

OK, so he said it twice.  Which is less than once for each year that he gave orders to the U.S. Army to kill rebels.

Actions speak louder than words.  While Abraham Lincoln may have believed that in theory an oppressed people have the right to revolt, he clearly didn't think that a bunch of sore losers who want to take their ball and go home when they lose a democratic election (<--- this part is important) qualified.

Losing a fair and democratic election is not "tyranny."  Being outvoted in Congress is not "tyranny."  It's 150 years later and conservatives still can't tell the difference.

I suspect if the tide of the war had swung the other way, and the south would have won the war, that the issue of states rights and secession would have never been questioned.

It wouldn't be questioned in the CSA... unless one of their states wanted to secede because they didn't like the outcome of a vote.

So you agree that they were traitors. But do you agree that their decision to revolt was right or wrong ?

I personally think it was justified; they were subjects of an autocratic monarch who exploited them without giving them input into their governance.  But this is a far cry from the whiny loser nonsense perpetrated by the hypocrites in the CSA, who (ironically enough) believed in the same kind of undemocratic rule that the colonists fought against.  They just wanted to be on the beneficial side of it this time.

By the way, secession could exist as a peaceful condition. It doesn't have to be equal to armed revolt, treason, or sedition.

It already does exist and I just explained how to do it: you amend the Constitution to allow [states x, y, and/or z] to leave.

Of course, the sore losers in the South didn't give a damn about the Constitution they signed up for, and rather than trying the Constitutionally-approved process (and failing, because their gripes were without serious merit), they chose to try to shoot their way out of the Union.

And failed miserably.