Right to Secede

Okay, here's where my little bit of Texas knowledge comes in.

It is a widely believed falsehood that Texas still has secession powers. We do not, in the strictest legal terms. Let me explain.

Upon entering the Union, Texas, since we entered in through a treaty, NOT THROUGH ANNEXATION OR ANY OTHER NONSENSE, was allowed by the United States the right to either separate itself and become 5 Union states and/or leave the contractual treaty agreement.

Unfortunately, when Texas "asked" to rejoin the Union, we had to agree that states are not guaranteed the right to secede. As far as I know the rest of the states had to also agree to such. (BTW, I say "asked" because it was not voluntary, and above I say "strictest legal terms" because those who signed the re-entry agreement were not duly elected state officials...it would be like George Bush appointing the 9/11 Commission made up of himself, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove to find all 4 of them not guilty.)

As far as having the right to secede, regardless of your belief of whether the North or South was right, one ABSOLUTELY HAS TO recognize from the founding fathers' documents that they believed in the right to secede from a union. It's in the Declaration of Independence of the USA!!!

BTW, Daniel David, do you also take the position that John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry et al died in vain during the revolution? After all, they seceded from the British Union, which had legal claim to the colonies, and then made war with their gvernment.

Pray tell, what is the difference? Would it have made a difference if there was no slavery in the South? What about those slave-holding Northern states which Lincoln saw fit not to emancipate? Do you realize that the major reason for the Mason-Dixon Line and having slavery confined to the South is because the authors of that legislation wanted the new territories of the USA out west to be black-free? If there was slavery, there would be blacks. If there was no slavery, then laws could be passed to prohibit blacks from living in a particular state.

I'm a good ole Southern boy and a Texas boy, but truthfully I had as many kinfolks on both sides of the war...most of my Arkansas kin were Yankees simply because the Yankees had control of the area and offered to pay.

I actually had one uncle who was drafted into the Union army, went awol from there and returned to the farm, he was then conscripted by the Confederate Army and went awol from there. Family story says that when any army would come near the old farmplace Uncle Bythel would be rushed off to the fields to hide so as not to be caught awol be either side.

Back then, for many folks, they didn't know what was all going on. They did know they were poor and the offer to fight for money to help provide for their families was a great proposal. That's why my g-g-grandpa fought for the North. Not out of love for the Union, but because the South did not have control of that part of the state and could not offer the same kind of money.

Something else as well, Joseph, only Louisiana herself and part of Arkansas were part of the Louisiana Purchase, so they other Southern states were not "bought" by the USA. Some would say that part of Texas was included in this as well, but technically speaking, France did not have legal claim to sell the land anyway, all of which was owned by Spain, NOT FRANCE. In fact, the condition of France getting the "New World" land after the war was that France had to keep the land for themselves and if they did not the land would be forfeited back to Spain.

Of course, now we've got the question, did the USA legally buy Louisiana from her rightful owner? Answer, no, but I don't think anyone's going to try to change that now. I think 200 years is a pretty good statute of limitations on contested real estate transactions.

Anyway, that's a whole nuther can of worms there.

Bottom line, secession was a right recognized by almost all people up until slavery became a hot button issue and it began to look like some states might actually voice that right.

Too bad it didn't work.

Only thing that would work better for this country is a dictatorship run by me.

From a Yankee Rebel descendant, men on both sides fought valiantly for what they believed in, as well some did not. We need to make that distinction and then recognize ALL of those who fought bravely on both sides.

To belittle my g-g-grandfather's service(the Confederate on, that is) is insulting to me, my family, and tells that a person has no moral character when they will put down someone who fought for a worthy cause...FREEDOM!

 

So you would have simply ignored the fact that it wasn't your land? Would that make you a thief? I am not sure your attempt at secession / stealing the Union's land would have been legal or moral. If it were your land, I think that would be disfferent.

Joseph Botwinick

 

NO. Two examples:

(1) In 1890 Zionist Convention it was suggested that the Jews, displaced in nations, form a new homeland in uninhabited regions - Uganda!

They opted against it, because of the historic ties with the land.

And so the South, would not work as a colony transplanted to Brazil or Figi or Liberia. They were tied to the land, too.

(2) In 1845 the Mormons sought refuge much like the South. They wanted THEIR "peculiar institutions" to go unpersecuted by the Federales. They found unoccupied territory, outside the US.

I live in the area affected by the Mormon War in the years just prior to the Civil War. US army invaded and occupied the region to dominate and control the territory.

Prelude to the coalition of Northern States (under the guise of US government) forcing their will on "free" people. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob,

I am not sure the Zionist example would stand up to the test of time for two reasons:

1. I think the Jewish people have a stronger claim to the land of Israel by several thousands of years (at least). Also, they were established as a State in 1948 by an international body.

and

2. I don't think the Confederates have quite faced anywhere close the level of persecution that the Jewish People did and still do today. They have fought not only for their homeland (which they certainly have a stronger claim to than the Confederates did), but also for their very survival. I don't think that anyone could make a case that Lincoln's goal was the annihilation of all confederates. And yet, the Jewish People have faced that with several enemies in the past century (AKA Hitler, PLO, etc...).

Furthermore, how do you justify legally or morally those who lived within the LA Purchase basically attempting to steal the Union's land which they purchased with their own money? At least from a moral point of view, would it not have been better if they had simply found somewhere else to live or colonized their own nation somwhere else? Don't you think that they could have avoided a war? I think they could have.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You're point is well taken. But the fact is, the US Government DID buy the LA Purchase which included all or part of the following states Louisianna, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas.

Now, it seems to me that those who lived in these states might have been in rebellion to God by attempting to steal the land from the US Government that did not really belong to the Confederates in those States. If they were unhappy, they should have moved. I see nothing that would make it to where the Union had any moral or legal obligation to sell that land to the Confederates. If you could tell me why you think they had a moral or legal obligation to do so, I would probably agree with you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, Oklahoma(Indian Territory), Missouri, and Kansas did not secede from the Union.

Anyway, where do you think the federal government got the money to buy Louisiana in 1803? Tax dollars from American citizens, many of whom lived in the area "purchased".

Government owned land is really not a correct term. It is public land or land owned by the people.

Anyhow, that still does not apply to the vast majority of the southern states.

 

Now ya'll quit this fightin'. Ken, I feel for you but ya can't argue with a Yank. They don't think logically. lol

Contrary to popular Northern opinion, the war was not fought specifically over slavery. Most of the men who were Confederate soldiers never even owned a slave. They fought because the North was trying to keep the South down economically. The North felt superior in every way to the South and knew that ending slavery would destroy the South's economy. The North had it's own kind of slavery. The sweat shop factories of the Great North barely paid their workers enough to scrape by on, much less enough to actually live on. They employeed children who were barely able to do any work and many died in factories with no concern for their safety.
Daniel, when you slander the name of Robert E. Lee, boy, you walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Robert E. Lee was an officer and a gentleman. He can't in any way, be compared to Osama bin Laden.
He was terribly grieved when the war began and only left the US army because he felt he could not fire upon his own people in Virignia. (Ask yourself if you could go to war against your own brothers or other kinfolks) He was already a decorated soldier from the Mexican war and loved his life in the US Army. Mr. Lee never actually owned any slaves until he inherited his father-in-law's slaves upon that man's death. He freed all of those slaves because he did not believe in slavery. He was a soldier doing a soldier's duty. Nothing more. He never maligned the Union soldiers, but simply called them "those people". His army never ravaged the population nor burn whole towns in Northern states, unlike what Northern armies did in the South. He certainly wasn't the barbarian your General Sherman was nor was he an alcoholic like General Grant. The South lost the war because of the inability to obtain supplies and the destruciton of our cities and people's homes. General Lee would not sacrifice any more of his men for a hopeless cause, although they were certainly willing to keep fighting. Why would men who didn't own slaves want to keep fighting? Certainly not to keep rich men in their manor houses.

I'm a proud Southerner who does not believe in secession, although I can understand some of the reasons why back then they thought they had to. You must remember the Federal government didn't have as much power or interference in State governments then as they do now. Joseph, not all Southern states were purchased from another country as Louisiana was. States such as North Carolina simply expanded their borders by taking in new lands populated mostly by Native Americans, such as the whole southern part of what is now the state of Tennessee.
It's exactly what cities do now with annexation.

I would also remind some here that Abe Lincoln didn't free all the slaves in his Emanciaption Proclamation, only the ones in the states which had seceded. Also, there were plenty of people in the North who did believe in slavery, so there wasn't much there to be "high and mighty" about.

If I had a piece of property with a house or any other building built by me, and the government wanted the property, I feel that I would have the right to destroy everything I had build and leave the land in it's undeveloped state. They could take my land but not what I put on it. They never compensate you for what it's worth in the developed state anyway.


For the most part, I think this is a futile discussion. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and the war is over.

 

You know, ignorance isn't a badge of honor where I come from.

I work for a company that could verify this statement, so I will verify. It is a false statement.

 

They didn't really have that "right". They took a stand, and won. If they had lost, we would have continued to remain as part of the British Empire, at least for a while. The UK has let other colonies go, so, had we lost, they may well have let us go eventually. But that's sheer speculation. Getting to the point, the US breaking from England wasn't a "right". It's sometign we did, because we felt we were wronged in regards to representation.

Regardless of our thoughts, there's no constitutionally guaranteed right of secession for states in the union (which has been heard un the courts and upheld as such). There's a right for a state to secede from another state.

The secession of the South was not a "right". It was simply something they did. It wasn't wrong, immoral, or anything else, but it wasn't a "right". What makes or breaks independence is whether one wins the war over it or not. In the case of us vs Britain, we won. In the case of the North vs the South, the South lost.

All discussions out of that realm are simply opinions. And you know what they say opinions are like....

 

Of course, our secession from the British Empire was a different story right, since we were fighting for our "freedom"

What from? unreasonable taxes, unreasonable laws, military oppression, no concern for individual rights, and of course, religious freedom

There are several parallels, yet the founding fathers are praised, and Davis and his cronies are villified. Johnv is right, the only reason that is the case, is that they lost. Not any valid moral or ethical reason for their actions.

 

Daniel, I have also been on the receiving end of the deal. They know they are going to destroy whatever stands on the property and won't fully compensate you for it. If you want it, you have to move it and that is just more expense for you. Why should they pay for something they are going to destroy anyway.

I really could care less where you came from but I've been around enough years to know how the system works. I'm not talking private companies. I'm talking State road construction.

Please don't start insulting me with the "ignorant" remarks. It does not become a Christian to call others stupid names or denigrate someone's intelligence.

 

delly, pay no attention to Daniel. I'm still amazed that he is allowed to remain a member of this board with all of the personally insulting remarks and attacks he throws at everyone constantly.

I guess God has remanifest himself and his new name is Daniel. He's the only perfect one among us.

 

There are a couple of states that we might want to secede now...

 

Secession is a totally legit thing even according to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-secession advocates have nothing to stand on. I'm from S.C. and its a big debate down there and trust me Secession is a great option it helps keep the government honest.

 

I think I agree with you about the meaning of the Constitution, but the reality is that US Troops put down the last secession, and should it come up again, they would again. In reality, it is the deadest of dead horses.

 

Agree 100% with Dr Bob. WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS . . . ."

Prior to WW2 a country generally needed a large army and population in order to exist. Since the H Bomb and the cruise missle, this is no longer true. Just as Col. Colt equalized individuals, the suit case a-bomb equalizes nations. For example, the USofA is paralyzed by the Moslem nations because they might have WMDs.

I suggest that the USofA is to large to be efficiently governed. I suggest that we separate into at least 4 sovereign nations - west of the Rockies, the lane between the Rockies and the Mississippi, and the east coast divided on the Mason-Dixon Line. Each country would have access to the sea and sufficient natural resources to exist.

 

Not that it would ever happen but, if one or two states did try to leave the union and the federal government chose to take up arms against those state(s). What would the likely reponse be from the other states?