Is Secession Legal?

[jgoodguy]

Gawd how I like slow softballs in debates. Just wish I had not overslept.

 

[jgoodguy]

It still amazes me how people give zero credit to northern soldiers' fighting to save the Union/nation. Only the rebels, who deliberately attempted to break up that Union/nation, have a love of country. Did it ever occur to these folks that northern immigrants came to America because of the promise of "government of the people, by the people, for the people?" Can northern soldiers not also be patriots? Remember, Davis was the first to introduce conscription. For the first 2+ years of the war, the US Army was 100% volunteers. The USA fought all the way to Gettysburg with an all-volunteer army. Confederates cannot say that.

of interest

 

[jgoodguy]

It was more difficult for logistics in the North because the South had such poor infrastructure. That's why Jefferson Davis had been trying most of his political career to get the moss-backed planters to allow progress - like a port or shipyard rather than a mere landing. However, Van Dorn's spectacular three pronged raid through north Mississippi and middle Tennessee - him, Morgan and Forrest were a dream team for that - accidentally made a bulb go on over Grant's head. His depot was destroyed, no food or supplies, he would have to withdraw...except Mississippi was the richest state in the country. He was astonished at just how rich when he began to get together replacement foodstuffs and necessities. That gave Sherman ideas, too, for a future march to the sea. At any rate, the cavalrymen did much better than the foot soldiers of the CSA - when Forrest surrendered in Alabama just about everything he turned over had USA stamped or branded on it! He made no requisitions the final two years of the war but supplied himself from the enemy.

The Union army was the 'Walmart' for the Confederate army -- until Grant stopped retreating after every battle and the Confederate army starved.

 

[jgoodguy]

care to expand on that?

Lots of Germans in Sudetenland so Germany demanded the land they were on. Or did I miss something.

 

[rittmeister]

Lots of Germans in Sudetenland so Germany demanded the land they were on. Or did I miss something.

so who seceeded before that happened?

 

[jgoodguy]

hä? so if someone tells you your country is a lot smaller now your answer is 'okay'?

Good one.

 

[jgoodguy]

so who seceeded before that happened?

I was thinking more of aggressive armies, sorry about the confusion.

 

[diane]

The Union army was the 'Walmart' for the Confederate army -- until Grant stopped retreating after every battle and the Confederate army starved.

That's so - Grant was doing something else there but that was a happy side effect for him. This is why Forrest stepped up his raids on Union garrisons that were not particularly important - he needed medical supplies and whatever they had on hand.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Gawd how I like slow softballs in debates.

"Hit em inside out" look to where they are playin' you shallow and send 'em into right field, it's all in the wrists...and the footwork. Got a few inside the parks that way, and I'm slower than George Thomas.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

I'm slower than George Thomas.

I still remember Tony Perez #24 once saying, "I am slower than I look Joe." He o/c was speaking of his speed on the base-paths.

Pérez, Tony | Baseball Hall of Fame

One of the National Pastime’s great run producers, Atanacio “Tony” Pérez Rigal was among the best when it came to driving in big runs for Cincinnati’s “Big Red Machine” of the 1970s. “Pete (Rose) would get his 200 hits, and (Johnny) Bench would do his thing,” said former Pérez teammate Pat...

baseballhall.org

I was there at the game when they retired his number. When they traded him to the Montreal Expos The Big Red Machine broke down as the main cog was gone. Traded for Woodie Fryman --a Kentucky boy--and trash... I'm still pissed about it.

 

[TomEvans]

Secession is legal, because the Declaration of Independence declared the states as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and so they never had a political superior, which wholly invalidates the US government's legal argument for national union over the states:

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Meanwhile Lincoln denied that the states had ever been sovereign nations-- and the Congress concurred-- on the following legal basis:

Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty.

... by the Declaration of Independence... the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary....

In reality however, the states did not declare sovereign dependence on the Union via the Declaration of Independence; since the states never had sovereign dependence on "one another or the Union;" and they did not declare such sovereign dependence, while they clearly did not have it before they were states (at which time they were colonies, which had sovereign dependence on Great Britain only).

So in conclusion: it is a historical fact that the colonies declared independence as "free and independent states;" which implies the absence of a political superior, while precluding a political superior.

Therefore the US government's claim of national union is void, due to this historical fact.

 

[jgoodguy]

Secession is legal, because the Declaration of Independence declared the states as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and so they never had a political superior, which wholly invalidates the US government's legal argument for national union over the states:



Meanwhile Lincoln denied that the states had ever been sovereign nations-- and the Congress concurred-- on the following legal basis:




In reality however, the states did not declare sovereign dependence on the Union via the Declaration of Independence; since the states never had sovereign dependence on "one another or the Union;" and they did not declare such sovereign dependence, while they clearly did not have it before they were states (at which time they were colonies, which had sovereign dependence on Great Britain only).

So in conclusion: it is a historical fact that the colonies declared independence as "free and independent states;" which implies the absence of a political superior, while precluding a political superior.

Therefore the US government's claim of national union is void, due to this historical fact.

Except, that was true for 13 colonies that formed the United States, however later all ratified the Constitution AKA national union and gave up many sovereign rights including unliteral secession. In short, the former confederation of independent states, became a Union of states. The original states under the Articles of Confederation never had an existence outside of the British Empire or the Articles of Confederation so their sovereignty ranges from mere rhetoric to speculative at best.

 

[5fish]

Therefore, the US government's claim of national union is void, due to this historical fact.

Let's say your claim is accepted, it only means the original 13 Colonies, Texas, and Hawaii could secede under your rationale... The other 35 states were territories that became states, never having any independent sovereignty.

During the Civil War, using your rational arguments, only Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas had the right to secede. Only five of the original 13 Confederate states could legally secede from the Union using your rationale. The other 8 Confederate states were in breach of their Constitutional duties and obligations.

I ask how you are going to square your rationale with the fact that the other 35 states never had sovereignty?

I say using your rationale only gives a limited number of states the legal right to secede...

 

[jgoodguy]

Let's say your claim is accepted, it only means the original 13 Colonies, Texas, and Hawaii could secede under your rationale... The other 35 states were territories that became states, never having any independent sovereignty.

During the Civil War, using your rational arguments, only Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas had the right to secede. Only five of the original 13 Confederate states could legally secede from the Union using your rationale. The other 8 Confederate states were in breach of their Constitutional duties and obligations.

I ask how you are going to square your rationale with the fact that the other 35 states never had sovereignty?

I say using your rationale only gives a limited number of states the legal right to secede...

Legalities aside, secession success needs permission of the other Stares by the simple expedient of affirming the secession or by not challenging it. Alternatively winning a war of independence AKA the Confederate States attempt, winning negates the legal aspects.

 

[5fish]

So the South was not going to "rebellion," like the colonies did, i.e. in acknowledgement of the existing lawful political superior in the Union, like the Colonies did with Great Britain: i.e. declaring independence from it:

No... Again under your reasoning every state after the original 13 would territories of the United States and were to created by the Congress of the United States never any sense of independence...

I think you need to think of the states are in a partnership and when one of the partner wants to leave the partnership gets dissolved freeing all partners from their obligations once debts are settled... You could argue if any one of the original 13 wanted to end the partnership called the United States it going into "wounding" and all debts resolve and the other 12 original states could reform the original United States or create something new .. all the other states would be free seek new partnership with the other states or recreate the original United States again...

Come on be creative....

 

[5fish]

Secession is legal, because the Declaration of Independence

I think you are right the Declaration of Independence has been used by many to declared their freedom and revolution... John Adam want our revolution to be the blueprint for all other revolution to come...

Based on your reasoning the United States could kick out the original 13 states and keep on going for the true United States are the other 37 states which were created by Congress or let in by Congress... May be that a path one should follow...

 

[TomEvans]

Except, that was true for 13 colonies that formed the United States, however later all ratified the Constitution AKA national union and gave up many sovereign rights including unliteral secession. In short, the former confederation of independent states, became a Union of states.

The US government never claimed that.

On the contrary, it claimed that the states had NEVER been fully-sovereign nations; but rather he fabricated a history in which they had always formed a national union from the start, which was always political superior to the individual states.



So this claimed that the states had never been without a political superior in the Union.
And that's how the US government authorized Total War against the states, under a claim of national union dating back to 1776-- which it claimed that the Constitution simply continued.

And the US government has stood by this argument ever since:



While in reality the American Revolution indeed established the states as an international union of 13 fully-sovereign nations; so the US government made no valid legal argument, for national union over any state.

Accordingly, the US government engages a coup in 1861, including supplanting the existing legal sovereignty of the international union among the (then-34) sovereign nations; and seized power by claiming legitimacy, along with totalitarian suppression of the truth under claim of "national security" (i.e. to secure the national union that he to CREATED by revolution against the sovereign nations).



And to date, the truth has been suppressed to the point of stigma, as this totalitarian regime continued under its mask of "freedom."

 

[TomEvans]

I think you are right the Declaration of Independence has been used by many to declared their freedom and revolution... John Adam want our revolution to be the blueprint for all other revolution to come...

Based on your reasoning the United States could kick out the original 13 states

Only by seceding to form their own new union, like 11 of the states did to ratify the Constitution. NOBODY called it "rebellion."

But then when they did it again in 1860, suddenly it was "treason," since Jackson and Lincoln fabricated a false history to claim that the states ALWAYS formed a national union from 1776 onward, and that none of them had ever been nationally independent while in the Union.

From

Lincoln's July 4, 1861 Message to Congress (with which Congress concurred, in authorizing unprecedented military force against individual states, under claim of national authority):

"Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of 'State rights,' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the ’sovereignty' of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a 'sovereignty' in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it 'a political community without a 'political superior‘? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty.

... by the Declaration of Independence... the 'United Colonies' were declared to be 'free and independent States;' but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary...."

The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution.

So here the US government claimed that:

• the Declaration of Independence established a single free and independent federal state;
  
  
• as a national union, which was political superior over 13 dependent federated states.

And the US government has never since denied or retracted this argument.

The Union army was the 'Walmart' for the Confederate army -- until Grant stopped retreating after every battle and the Confederate army starved.

Sun Tzu wrote that captured enemy-supplies are worth 20 times their cost.

 

[5fish]

Sun Tzu wrote that captured enemy-supplies are worth 20 times their cost.

It was a risk-management guide to avoid war and its costs...

Risk management and 'The art of War'

Duncan Stephenson explains what lessons the board can learn...

www.strategic-risk-global.com

 

[TomEvans]

It was a risk-management guide to avoid war and its costs...

Risk management and 'The art of War'

Duncan Stephenson explains what lessons the board can learn...

www.strategic-risk-global.com

War isn't hell... it's BUSINESS.

Just like risk-management... what do you think actuaries are for?