Secession Is A Radical Solution That Sadly Doesn’t Seem So Radical Any More

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

You couldn't be more ass-backwards if you tried. After SC declared themselves to no longer be a part of the United States (You DID get taught the part about SC being one of the "volunteer union states",right),the Yankee troops no longer had a right to be there,and they had refused to leave after being ordered to leave.

They were armed invaders refusing to leave,so they were fired upon.

You resort to circular logic very often, or only when all your other efforts fall completely flat?

And what parts of "Secession is unconstitutional" and what part of "Fort Sumter was federal territory" have flown completely over your head again?

You do admit that Sumter was not part of South Carolina, don't you?

You do recognize that the Constitution forbids rebellion, don't you?

Do you have any problems with the fact that President George Washington led troops to confront the Whiskey Rebellion?

When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why are you people so unhappy that an honest man is telling you your fantasies of secession are illegal on their face?

Why are you people so unhappy that someone is pointing out that secession aka "fights for independence" are not only always violent but usually quite unsuccessful?  And even when the split or revolution succeeds on it's face, the people who forced the split almost always wind up with a worse tyranny than they started with.  CF Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Cuba, China, South America, South Africa, Weimar Republic.

There's nothing to indicate that if a bunch of fools ripped the US apart and attempted to form a new nation that the final product would be better.   History says most likely not.

How did things turn out for the Southern secesh?  Most of them lost their property, some of them their lives.  They had no sacred honor to lose.

Y'all need to put down those Kurt Schlichter fantasy novels and confront reality.   The Rodents WANT you people to fake up a secession.   That gives Duke Nuke'm a chance to play political hero again.

And you simply cannot count on today's military to refrain from shooting you.   West Point has been graduating open commies.

You have obviously succumbed to bondage and appear compliant in its ramifications.

Enjoy the new experience of socialism here while others make the break to freedoms.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Honest historians call that the US Civil War.

The Civil War started when the rebels fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal possession in Charleston Harbor.  Even the island the fort was built on was constructed using federal dollars.

Why do you hate the Constitution?  What did it ever do to you, sitting there in it's helium filled glass case?

Your twisting of history is as equally vile as what the Rodents do.

You should ask yourself why I can buy good history books and references at such low prices.   This fact is an indication that reality is being devalued in the US at the present, and has been for a long time.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the War between the States.

The South never wished to take over the rest of the country, which, since you so readily relish definitions, is the definition of a Civil War.

This was caused 100% by aggression by the federal government which is exactly what is happening now.

[Sled Dog]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the War between the States.

The South never wished to take over the rest of the country, which, since you so readily relish definitions, is the definition of a Civil War.

This was caused 100% by aggression by the federal government which is exactly what is happening now.

No, of course I don't.

That's why I employ the historically correct description of the Civil War, correctly describe the situation at Fort Sumter, and recognize correctly that the Constitution doesn't not permit rebellion.

You might want to include in your analysis that the rebels, before firing on Sumter, fired in a US flagged vessel entering the harbor to provide humanitarian supplies to the Fort.  That shot was actually the first shots in the war the rebels started.

And, actually, one of the demands the Rodents were making at the time was the full expansion of the slavery institution throughout all territories and new states.  So, yeah, they wanted to take over the whole country.

[sneakypete]

You resort to circular logic very often, or only when all your other efforts fall completely flat?

@Sled Dog

Are you a professional fool,or do you just play one on the internet?

And what parts of "Secession is unconstitutional" and what part of "Fort Sumter was federal territory" have flown completely over your head again?

ALL of it,because it is BullBiden.

You do admit that Sumter was not part of South Carolina, don't you?

In what alternate universe? Last time I was in the area,it was still there.

You do recognize that the Constitution forbids rebellion, don't you?

Going to ignore the Declaration of Independence again,are you? Do you even know what it is?

Do you have any problems with the fact that President George Washington led troops to confront the Whiskey Rebellion?

Yes. It just proves that nobody is perfect,and politicians are always trying to get their hand in your pockets.

When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".

Key word highlighted. Ponder it for a few decades.

[Fishrrman]

Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."

Just askin', but where is that part located...?

[bigheadfred]

Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."

Just askin', but where is that part located...?

is this one of those powder things

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."

Just askin', but where is that part located...?

From the bowels of one person here who chooses to fight against freedoms rather than against tyrants.

[Sled Dog]

Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."

Just askin', but where is that part located...?

Read the thread.

[Sled Dog]

From the bowels of one person here who chooses to fight against freedoms rather than against tyrants.

No.

From the bowls of the earth comes the food of patriots, an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect it from all enemies DOMESTIC and foreign.

Secesh are just as much enemies of the Constitution as the Rodents.

You have noticed that not one of you is actually citing that imaginary portion of the Constitution that permits this secession thing you people claim exists.

And yeah, someone already cited the Tenth Amendment, of course, and the Constitution, of course, explicitly requires the Congress to suppress rebellion, so the Tenth Amendment doesn't recognize secession as one of the rights not explicitly enumerated, it is, actually, a forbidden act, PER THE CONSTITUTION.

What is wrong with you people?  Read the Constitution and start looking at the thing as an organic whole.

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

Are you a professional fool,or do you just play one on the internet?

ALL of it,because it is BullBiden.

In what alternate universe? Last time I was in the area,it was still there.

Going to ignore the Declaration of Independence again,are you? Do you even know what it is?

Yes. It just proves that nobody is perfect,and politicians are always trying to get their hand in your pockets.

When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".


Key word highlighted. Ponder it for a few decades.

Yes.

Even in 1860 it was illegal for citizens to fire cannons into a federal military facility.

They're not even allowed to fire cannons at ships entering US harbors, and that's regardless of whether the ships are flying  the US flag or not, or if the ship was bringing supplies to a US military fort in the harbor that the criminals firing the cannon are trying to starve into submission.

Amazing, that word "illegal". It's not just for border crosses with Kung Flu.

[Smokin Joe]

You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?

Interesting.

Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.

Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Sled Dog]

Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.

Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:

Okay, for people who don't understand, i'll repeat:

The Constitution is the LAW of the LAND.

The Declaration is an excuse note.  It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.

That does not invalidate the lines against rebellion written into the Constitution by the same people who fought the Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence.

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

[Smokin Joe]

Okay, for people who don't understand, i'll repeat:

The Constitution is the LAW of the LAND.

The Declaration is an excuse note.  It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.

That does not invalidate the lines against rebellion written into the Constitution by the same people who fought the Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence.

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

I would argue that the reasons given, the logic behind the Declaration remains valid. That RIGHT continues to exist, regardless of an agreement made centuries ago, which has been frequently violated. There is no way that those Sovereign and Several States would have formed a compact had they not believed it could be dissolved.

[roamer_1]

Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.

Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:

And lest ANYONE forget, the DoI precedes the Constitution, and by its precedence, is the document of ultimate authority.

[roamer_1]

The Declaration is an excuse note.  It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.

NO. It declares in plain language why ANY government should and can be dissolved, including THIS ONE.

[Sled Dog]

NO. It declares in plain language why ANY government should and can be dissolved, including THIS ONE.

Fine.

The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.

Secession is a violation of the laws of this land.  It's "unconstitutional".   Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.

People who support secession should at least demonstrate the tiniest bit of maturity it would take to admit this truth, and to admit that what they have to do is gear up for war.

The pitiful children pushing the idiotic secessionist ideas today want to pretend they are supporting the Constitution, just as the disgusting Rodents of 1860 pretended they were defending the Constitution then.   They were not then, and secessionists today are not defending the Constitution now.

The secesh of 1860 talked of war.

The childish secesh of 2021 talk of running away and hiding, and avoid all mention of the realities of the consequences of starting what they want to start.

Man up, people.   If you want what you want, say so.  Stop pretending it's Constitutional, because it is not.   Stop pretending it will be easy, because it will be bloody.  Stop pretending you will succeed, for you almost certainly will not.   The secessionist movement of today isn't blessed with the kind of geniuses that made a successful nation out of the calamity of war in 1887.

[roamer_1]

Fine.

The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.

Secession is a violation of the laws of this land.  It's "unconstitutional".   Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.

No, it simply relies upon the document that precedes all documents - and IS the ultimate law of this land. The very declaration that gave us liberty in the first place. You should read it. You will find your flaw.

And as I said before - There is not a contract anywhere on this earth that cannot be quit for nonperformance. And the Constitution is a contract.

[Smokin Joe]

Fine.

The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.

Secession is a violation of the laws of this land.  It's "unconstitutional".   Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.

People who support secession should at least demonstrate the tiniest bit of maturity it would take to admit this truth, and to admit that what they have to do is gear up for war.

The pitiful children pushing the idiotic secessionist ideas today want to pretend they are supporting the Constitution, just as the disgusting Rodents of 1860 pretended they were defending the Constitution then.   They were not then, and secessionists today are not defending the Constitution now.

The secesh of 1860 talked of war.

The childish secesh of 2021 talk of running away and hiding, and avoid all mention of the realities of the consequences of starting what they want to start.

Man up, people.   If you want what you want, say so.  Stop pretending it's Constitutional, because it is not.   Stop pretending it will be easy, because it will be bloody.  Stop pretending you will succeed, for you almost certainly will not.   The secessionist movement of today isn't blessed with the kind of geniuses that made a successful nation out of the calamity of war in 1887.

If you think the conquest of the Southern States by the North reunified the Republic, think again. The fault lines run deep, and after a century of being treated like sh*t, the South still hasn't forgotten, especially the hypocrisy of those who violated the Constitution in order to "save it".

Now try to tell me that the Government in Washington DC is anything representative of the 80+million who voted for someone other than the puppet in the White House. I'm all ears.

If it comes to a war, it will be bloody. Secession was an attempt to split without the destructive bloodshed but the Union (Yankees) insisted on "reunifying" the States by force. They invaded the South, looted and burned their way along, and the claimed "moral high ground" of freeing slaves (which didn't come up until the war had been going for two years) was cause for riots among the conscripts in New York who would not go to war for that 'cause'.

While you might maintain that any attempt to secede would be doomed to failure, well so was the upstart colonies taking on the might of the British Empire. We are the producers, not the coasts, and while that is a similar situation to that of the South in the last conflict, the understanding that the states in secession would not be left alone is there, the precedent is established, and the conflict would have to be carried out as other than as strictly defensive. That part is understood, too.

I would love for our Federal Government to have an epiphany and start abiding by the rest of the Constitution, but it is likely that their only sticking point would be their rejection of any attempt to dissolve that covenant. At some point, conflict is inevitable along the current path. The only question is what form that will take. Will it be open, or will it be a real insurrection, or will it be people cowering behind their doors at night hoping the 'knock' won't come?

In  the words of a Patriot, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty..."

Now go ahead and run howling back to your masters because someone dared quote Patrick Henry.

[240B]

There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.

When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.

[sneakypete]

There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.

When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.

@240B

How DARE you to suggest we shouldn't serve our Masters!

Weeze watch-in yew,boy!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.

When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.

Yes, the federal government was created by a collection of sovereign states to serve those states for specific purposes as outlined in the Constitution.

That same federal government now believes the states serve it instead, so the servant is now the master.

It is seen daily, as an example most recently by an Executive Order which demands states permit criminals, who have forfeited their rights as citizens, to be able to vote.  Not even masked as a law passed by Congress, but a dictate from Executive who does not believe states are sovereign with the power to decide themselves.

A clear violation of the Constitution between states.

But some here believe we should reject freedoms and bear the yoke of slavery instead.

[sneakypete]

Yes, the federal government was created by a collection of sovereign states to serve those states for specific purposes as outlined in the Constitution.

That same federal government now believes the states serve it instead, so the servant is now the master.

It is seen daily, as an example most recently by an Executive Order which demands states permit criminals, who have forfeited their rights as citizens, to be able to vote.  Not even masked as a law passed by Congress, but a dictate from Executive who does not believe states are sovereign with the power to decide themselves.

A clear violation of the Constitution between states.

But some here believe we should reject freedoms and bear the yoke of slavery instead.

@IsailedawayfromFR

The majority of any population group are natural-born followers. They are just not happy making their own decisions and want someone to tell them what to do. The ideal political solution for them would be to revert to being serfs working for a Lord like  in Medieval Times.

I ain't no shrink and don't even play one on teebee,but *I* suspect the reason for this is they want something to bitch about and  blame on someone else,and if they made their own decisions,the only one they would have to blame is themselves. MUCH betta to put someone else in charge and then bitch about every single thing they do so you can feel better about yourself.

Another word for these people is "Dim-o-crats".

[goatprairie]

I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is  citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States.  Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have  the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail,  and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that  preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.

[Smokin Joe]

I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is  citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States.  Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have  the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail,  and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that  preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.

By golly, you make a good point. How long would the rest survive without the Red states? Where most energy is produced, most grain is grown, even ethanol? That's my two cents.
You say the secession was over slavery, but that was the last straw in a long string of economic burdens the North intended to impose on the South. The pan was well primed long before that spark, and slavery was doomed as an institution anyway. Manumission was on the increase, simply because it was more economical to rent European immigrants for labor than to own slaves which required constant upkeep and housing and often an initial investment as well. It is the same reason the automobile replaced the horse in general use, because the automobile need not be fed when it was not in use, and required less land to keep.