Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2012, 03:32 PM   #261
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 2,079

[quote=Hopeforus;888315]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post

BULL!!

That is NOT an argument.

Perhaps you should bone up on debate and discourse.

Its not bull... the issue of secession was argued before the Supreme Court and a decision handed down ruling it illegal.
Once again, the Constitution, to which the Southern States were signatories, Specifically lays out the circumstances for adjudicating such disputes, and The Southern States had AGREED, in signing the Constitution, to abide by the rulings of that body.
The Southern States failed to bring such a case before the Supreme Court... and in Seceding unilaterally, they claimed to no longer be held to the Compact they had signed, WITHOUT negotiation or recourse to the authority to which they had previously stipulated.

The States Rights they claimed were something they MADE UP. There is no provision in the Constitution giving States the Right to make law regarding the composition of the federal union. Their 'rights' only extend to those aspects that affect their OWN populations without affecting the Union at large. The Constitution reserves all rights regarding the Federation to the federal level.

In point of fact, Secession is plainly no different an issue than ANY breach of contract and is covered under contract law.

The American revolution was the result of what the colonies considered to be a "Breach of compact" with Britain. Britain passed laws stating that subjects must have representation in Parliament. Americans were DENIED representation in Parliament, ergo, Americans were NOT subjects. Quite literally, not subject to British rule, UNLESS we were given representation.

Britain could have sidestepped the war by simply giving in on that demand... But did not- hence we separated.

The Southern States, individually and collectively, were and are UNABLE to show any respect in which they had been denied anything agreed to in the Constitution. They had the same representation as all the other states. They had the same recourse to law that all other States had...

Ergo, they had no valid claim to breach on the part of the Union...

In Contract law, when one party breaches contract, the wronged party has the legal option of having government assistance in Forcing the other party to fulfill their contractual obligations.

The South breached their 'compact' with the Union, without any demonstrable claim that they had been denied any provision of the Compact they had signed onto. ... and the Union had every right to compel the South to uphold their agreements to these compacts.

It being on the level of Nations... it took armies to compel them.

This is what is called an argument from analogy. It shows that any other agreement legally committed to is BINDING on Both parties, ergo THIS agreement was binding on both parties.

You have yet to offer even the slightest argument explaining how the South had any right to secede.

Stomp your little foot and cry 'bull' all you want... the word "imbecile" literally means one who speaks without any support.
sculptingman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 14th, 2012, 06:22 PM   #262

HammockHank's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Florida
Posts: 1,320

Way to go, sculptingman. You nailed it. The cotton state secessionist had no justifiable grievances and only used the language of the Declaration of Independence to fool themselves into believing there were legitimate grievances.
HammockHank is offline  
Old January 14th, 2012, 10:50 PM   #263
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Minnesota
Posts: 348

Two thumbs up for telling the truth sculpting, Imsaid it as well, these people are race baiters anyways, who are trolling or neomconfederacy, they already qouted sources in threads using authors and professors on the "neo confederate watch list", by the SPLC & NAACP, like the other slavery thread which I outed them in my last post there.
Trout Bum is offline  
Old January 15th, 2012, 06:23 AM   #264

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

In all rebellions, the ones wanting to leave always reason their
cause is just and right. If they win, they were correct, if they lose
they were rebels.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:13 AM   #265
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander H View Post
James Madison wrote and offered this amendment up for consideration and inclusion.

10th Amendment....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Now, granted... if you look at this in a mirror, while drunk, and standing on your head...
you may find a glimmer of a slight chance in one thousand that this may, perhaps, kinda, possibly, in a way, allow secession...
That is if you rub your gennie-lamb and make wish... while clicking your heals three times... and yet then...only if dreaming.

James Madison himself puts this to rest...

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it......

It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.


* And yet some still choose to just post over and over again that the 10th amendment magically makes it A-OK to seceed... bizarre

Could someone make a clear, thought out, understandable argument that it would possibly allow it ?
I wish I could say this is the most ludicrous thing I've read recently, but it isn't. I hope you're "historian" title is self-implied and not a label of occupation. Implying Madison's opinion, which in no way references the 10th amendment, has some sort of precedence over the others' is nothing short of moronic. Many of our founders, and recent presidents, had the opposite opinion of secession, Jefferson being one of them.

Jefferson wrote: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"


So to say that Madison's opinion on the subject somehow dictates constitutional law begs the question, did Jefferson not also sign the DOI?

Quite simply, the 10th Amendment states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Last time I checked there was no statement in the Constitution on secession, meaning the states can do whatever the eff they want.

Secede away.
goliath07 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:16 AM   #266

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by goliath07 View Post
So to say that Madison's opinion on the subject somehow dictates constitutional law begs the question, did Jefferson not also sign the DOI?
Welcome to the forum. FYI, the Constitution and the DOI are two different things.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:09 AM   #267

RoryOMore's Avatar
Foremost Authority
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Northern Virginia
Posts: 2,708

I seldom go into long threads without reading them, but just a note: states under our Constitution (original 13 or other) were ultimately created by "We the People" of all the states. Under any sort of contract theory, the state can't secede (actually, be dissolved) without the consent of the people of all the states.
RoryOMore is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #268
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 619

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoryOMore View Post
I seldom go into long threads without reading them, but just a note: states under our Constitution (original 13 or other) were ultimately created by "We the People" of all the states. Under any sort of contract theory, the state can't secede (actually, be dissolved) without the consent of the people of all the states.
State constitutions are drafted and adopted by the people of a particular state, not by We the People as a whole. We the People, using Our instrument the Government of the United States of America, are able to decide whether or not to admit these new states into the Union, but We do not create them.

Ultimately, I've come to decide that debates over this issue of secession are an attempt to take what is a political issue and make it a holy one. Whether or not secession is legal is political, not a matter of supreme, incontrovertible law: Supreme Court decisions are not holy writ, they are practical decisions on particular cases that can be contradicted, overturned, or ignored at the will of future Justices or any other political power with the empirical ability to do so; the words of one particular Founder or another are not holy writ, they are the opinions of particular political actors with particular interests and ideals working within a system; etc etc, it goes on like this.

We need a framework to work within when it comes to discussing issues like this or we'll keep talking past each other. Common ground, as it were, we can meet upon and actually discuss the issue on, rather than shouting at each other from different, contradictory vessels.

Where that ground should lie needs to be established before anything like a productive discussion can be had. Otherwise people trade irrelevant paragraphs for a few pages worth of debate and then go home, every side convinced of its own victory.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 07:37 AM   #269

The Ghost of Crazy Horse's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: Berlin, MD.
Posts: 380

Short answer to the OP'squestion, yes. That is all, thank you.
The Ghost of Crazy Horse is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 12:40 PM   #270
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

[quote=sculptingman;894804]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus View Post


That is NOT an argument.

Perhaps you should bone up on debate and discourse.

Its not bull... the issue of secession was argued before the Supreme Court and a decision handed down ruling it illegal.
Once again, the Constitution, to which the Southern States were signatories, Specifically lays out the circumstances for adjudicating such disputes, and The Southern States had AGREED, in signing the Constitution, to abide by the rulings of that body.
The Southern States failed to bring such a case before the Supreme Court... and in Seceding unilaterally, they claimed to no longer be held to the Compact they had signed, WITHOUT negotiation or recourse to the authority to which they had previously stipulated.

The States Rights they claimed were something they MADE UP. There is no provision in the Constitution giving States the Right to make law regarding the composition of the federal union. Their 'rights' only extend to those aspects that affect their OWN populations without affecting the Union at large. The Constitution reserves all rights regarding the Federation to the federal level.

In point of fact, Secession is plainly no different an issue than ANY breach of contract and is covered under contract law.

The American revolution was the result of what the colonies considered to be a "Breach of compact" with Britain. Britain passed laws stating that subjects must have representation in Parliament. Americans were DENIED representation in Parliament, ergo, Americans were NOT subjects. Quite literally, not subject to British rule, UNLESS we were given representation.

Britain could have sidestepped the war by simply giving in on that demand... But did not- hence we separated.

The Southern States, individually and collectively, were and are UNABLE to show any respect in which they had been denied anything agreed to in the Constitution. They had the same representation as all the other states. They had the same recourse to law that all other States had...

Ergo, they had no valid claim to breach on the part of the Union...

In Contract law, when one party breaches contract, the wronged party has the legal option of having government assistance in Forcing the other party to fulfill their contractual obligations.

The South breached their 'compact' with the Union, without any demonstrable claim that they had been denied any provision of the Compact they had signed onto. ... and the Union had every right to compel the South to uphold their agreements to these compacts.

It being on the level of Nations... it took armies to compel them.

This is what is called an argument from analogy. It shows that any other agreement legally committed to is BINDING on Both parties, ergo THIS agreement was binding on both parties.

You have yet to offer even the slightest argument explaining how the South had any right to secede.

Stomp your little foot and cry 'bull' all you want... the word "imbecile" literally means one who speaks without any support.
So what you're saying is all the talk I've seen before about "why didn't the Southern States try secession peacefully and through the courts" is all hogwash because the Union would never have let them leave one way or the other?
Unrevised is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
10th, amendment, legal, prove, secession


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medieval Serbo-Greek Empire: social and legal context, and legal transplants from Byzantine Law Soloviev Medieval and Byzantine History 1 May 30th, 2007 01:46 PM
State Secession MrStoff1989 American History 0 October 11th, 2006 04:40 PM
This Day In History, September 4th-10th Lord_Cronus General History 8 September 10th, 2006 08:37 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.