Should Secession be an option?

SnowCal

50 Cent Party
Jan 24, 2012
1,715
72
✟9,835.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Somebody should have told Lincoln that in 1861.

You sympathize with slavers?

There's an old joke. Lars says '' You know, I built every house in this town. You see that church over there? I built the entire thing with my own hands. But nobody calls me Lars the Builder. You have relations with one sheep though...''

I'd rather be Lars than dream of the beauty of the era of slavery, personally. You are your own man of course and can make your own choices about whether symathising with slavers is worse than fornicating with wooly animals. But my mind is made.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You sympathize with slavers?

Are you referring to the founders of the US or of the Confederacy? Perhaps you're talking about the Northern factory owners, who had no qualms making their workers, including women and children, toil twelve hours a day in unhealthful and dangerous conditions for wages that were barely sufficient keep them alive. The majority of Southerners didn't own any slaves.

Anyway, the point I was making is that if you believe, as the Declaration of Independence states, that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, it's hard to make the case that the Southern states didn't have the right to independence if they wanted it. The very thing that the US claimed for itself eighty years prior, it denied South. Not only that, but it waged one of the bloodiest wars in history to do so. If the Union took the lives of over 600,000 of its own citizens to preserve, what does that say about its nature?
 
Upvote 0

Bethesda

Newbie
Sep 11, 2012
831
18
✟8,601.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Are you referring to the founders of the US or of the Confederacy? Perhaps you're talking about the Northern factory owners, who had no qualms making their workers, including women and children, toil twelve hours a day in unhealthful and dangerous conditions for wages that were barely sufficient keep them alive. The majority of Southerners didn't own any slaves.

Anyway, the point I was making is that if you believe, as the Declaration of Independence states, that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, it's hard to make the case that the Southern states didn't have the right to independence if they wanted it. The very thing that the US claimed for itself eighty years prior, it denied South. Not only that, but it waged one of the bloodiest wars in history to do so. If the Union took the lives of over 600,000 of its own citizens to preserve, what does that say about its nature?

Your first argument is the same one that was used in Apartheid South Africa - 'well look at other African countries - our blacks are far better off - they just have to tolerate us calling them boy etc - whats that compared to other things - they're like children, man'. I wonder if white Americans will be as blase if in 100 years time the dominant population is Latino and African American
Sorry but on your latter logic if the Germans had just stopped at eliminating all their own Jews, disabled, gay etc people on the basis of being the elected govt with a mandate for a racist govt policy that would have been ok, because overall less people would have died than did die in the war. War is terrible but some things are worse
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'd rather be Lars than dream of the beauty of the era of slavery, personally. .
Sometimes the dream can shift into a nightmare...
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Are you referring to the founders of the US or of the Confederacy? Perhaps you're talking about the Northern factory owners, who had no qualms making their workers, including women and children, toil twelve hours a day in unhealthful and dangerous conditions for wages that were barely sufficient keep them alive.

If you don't like your job, you have the choice to find a new one.

If you don't like your owner...
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If you don't like your job, you have the choice to find a new one.

If you don't like your owner...
Leaving from one job if one doesn't like it - even though it may hurt the owner of the company being left - opens up doors for others to come into the workforce and aid development. And for others not liking the U.S, it'd open the door up for other places to possibly become a U.S member in place of others wanting to leave...as is the case with Puerto Rico and others.

As said best elsewhere:

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) square miles (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Australia
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Bethesda said:
Your first argument is the same one that was used in Apartheid South Africa - 'well look at other African countries - our blacks are far better off - they just have to tolerate us calling them boy etc - whats that compared to other things - they're like children, man'.

I can see the point. If blacks in South Africa had a higher standard of living than in other countries that were ruled by blacks, why the particular antipathy toward South Africa? Apparently, the idea of an outpost of Western civilization on what was otherwise the most backward continent in the world was just anathema to the liberal mind, an affront to its egalitarian sensibilities.

Bethesda said:
I wonder if white Americans will be as blase if in 100 years time the dominant population is Latino and African American

I think it unlikely that there will still be a United States in 100 years time. That's kind of the point of this thread. Do you think the United States will last forever?



TLK Valentine said:
If you don't like your job, you have the choice to find a new one.

Working at another factory where you'll also have to work twelve hours a day under dangerous conditions for wages barely enough to keep you alive?
 
Upvote 0

Bethesda

Newbie
Sep 11, 2012
831
18
✟8,601.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
I can see the point. If blacks in South Africa had a higher standard of living than in other countries that were ruled by blacks, why the particular antipathy toward South Africa? Apparently, the idea of an outpost of Western civilization on what was otherwise the most backward continent in the world was just anathema to the liberal mind, an affront to its egalitarian sensibilities.

The point was that it an effront to the Africans of South Africa to have to carry a passbook, say baas to every white no matter how thick they were and be referred to as boy. Also I'm not sure that its mark of Western civilisation to set up death squads Vlakplaas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, or throw people out of police station windows. As even someone I know there said, the problem with the Afrikaaners in the police, esp those investigating breaches in the Immorality Act Immorality Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was that they couldn't keep their hands off black women
 
Upvote 0
C

Caesars Ghost

Guest
It's unconstitutional to secede. It's a fine notion when proponents are arguably conflicted about the path government and our nation is taking at any given time. However, it's still illegal or unconstitutional to secede from the union of the United States.

Part of the reason and to inform beforehand, the lyric in the Pledge of Allegiance.
"One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟28,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's unconstitutional to secede. It's a fine notion when proponents are arguably conflicted about the path government and our nation is taking at any given time. However, it's still illegal or unconstitutional to secede from the union of the United States.

Part of the reason and to inform beforehand, the lyric in the Pledge of Allegiance.
"One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge of Allegiance isn't part of the Constitution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The Declaration of Independence is relevant to secession--if not more so than even the Constitution. It says that man was endowed certain inalienable rights by their CREATOR. If the U.S. government is guilty of the very same offenses that created the U.S. government in the first place, then secession is justified, by something that trumps even the Constitution.
 
Upvote 0
C

Caesars Ghost

Guest
Why did you presume the PoA was part of the Constitution?

That stanza in the PoA informs that secession is not an option in and of itself. The PoA was written in 1892.

Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” The majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it “null,” and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the “perpetual union” of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, “revolution or the consent of the States,” but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act. (Source *one of many in accord with this decision*)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟28,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why did you presume the PoA was part of the Constitution?
I'm aware that the pledge isn't part of the Constitution. You said secession was unconstitutional and then quoted the pledge as if that was relevant.

That stanza in the PoA informs that secession is not an option in and of itself.
So what? Why should I care what Francis Bellamy thinks on this or anything for that matter?

Texas v. White in 1869
That's not the Constitution. That's someone's opinion. And not surprisingly, an employee of the federal government rules in favor of the federal government.

I conducted a search for a SCOTUS decision on this. I found a letter purportedly authored by Justice Scalia.
(here)
Link doesn't work. But like I said above, quote where in the Constitution speaks against secession, not what politicians want the Constitution to say.
 
Upvote 0
C

Caesars Ghost

Guest
I'm aware that the pledge isn't part of the Constitution. You said secession was unconstitutional and then quoted the pledge as if that was relevant.

So what? Why should I care what Francis Bellamy thinks on this or anything for that matter?

That's not the Constitution. That's someone's opinion. And not surprisingly, an employee of the federal government rules in favor of the federal government.

Link doesn't work. But like I said above, quote where in the Constitution speaks against secession, not what politicians want the Constitution to say.
You should learn to read the context of a reply. Then you'd realize the PoA was in no way said to be connected with the Constitution, in my former reply.

I'll correct the broken link in my prior reply and post it here to make it easy for you here as well: UtahPolicy.Com - Scalia: No Right to Secede

After that I don't care if you accept the information or not. If you want to find it in the Constitution, make the effort yourself. Instead of disrespecting those who elect to take the time to share without you appreciating one wit of it by being even the slightest bit civil.


Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟28,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You should learn to read the context of a reply. Then you'd realize the PoA was in no way said to be connected with the Constitution, in my former reply.

Then I ask again, why quote it at all? What possible relevance does it have?

After that I don't care if you accept the information or not. If you want to find it in the Constitution, make the effort yourself.
So you call something unconstitutional and are unable to actually show where in the Constitution it says that.

Instead of disrespecting those who elect to take the time to share without you appreciating one wit of it by being even even the slightest bit civil.
I'm not being disrespectful. If disagreeing with someone makes you disrespectful, then prepare for a whole lot of disrespect on CF (especially the politics board of all places).

As for the letter: his argument boils to that because Lincoln didn't like the South seceding and because the Union won, that somehow makes secession unconstitutional. So if the South had won, would that mean it was constitutional? It's rather telling when a Supreme Court Justice can't actually cite a place in a document he swore to uphold and instead falls back on 'might makes right.'
 
Upvote 0