Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

(06-30-2015 05:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lee was a tremendous general who ended his career serving an awful cause.

Liberty and Self governance from an oppressive Federal Govt.

A government that set the taxation Much Greater than what initiated the first war for independence from England!?

The export taxes from the cotton states were outrageous.

The North could not function without the money the south provided. Plus the North was going to bankrupt without the Southern cash cow.

The South provided 75% -80% of the Federal Budget.

The Confederate flag was the symbol of a nation that existed in large part due to slavery; the political crisis that led to its forming was over slavery; the economic battle between the North and South was between industry and slavery. The “preservation of the union” argument leading to the war was over the right to secede…over issues that all traced back to slavery.

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

If a county decided to leave a state, would the state permit that?

I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer.

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

If a county decided to leave a state, would the state permit that?

I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer.

El Paso almost became part of N.M. but it was voted down by the people.

Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

(06-30-2015 06:16 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 02:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lee was a tremendous general who ended his career serving an awful cause.

Liberty and Self governance from an oppressive Federal Govt.

A government that set the taxation Much Greater than what initiated the first war for independence from England!?

The export taxes from the cotton states were outrageous.

The North could not function without the money the south provided. Plus the North was going to bankrupt without the Southern cash cow.

The South provided 75% -80% of the Federal Budget.

The Confederate flag was the symbol of a nation that existed in large part due to slavery; the political crisis that led to its forming was over slavery; the economic battle between the North and South was between industry and slavery. The “preservation of the union” argument leading to the war was over the right to secede…over issues that all traced back to slavery.

The flag in question is not the CSA flag. It isn't the Stars and Bars or the Stainless Banner, or the Third National. Those were the symbols of the a nation. The Battle Flag was the soldier's flag.

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

I personally would not mind at all if there was a mechanism for secession in the US constitution, a clause describing a procedure for doing so. If the people of a state want their state to leave the USA, fine with me.

But, the fact of the matter is that there never has been any such provision in our constitution. And furthermore, the historical record makes it clear that when the 13 former British colonies were forming the USA, ratification of the constitution by a state was regarded as permanent and irrevocable.

Heck, when New York was debating whether to ratify, its legislature wanted to approve ratification, but with the caveat that New York reserved the right to rescind ratification and leave the Union at any time. Alexander Hamilton told their delegation that ratification was permanent and that if New York enacted their ratification document, it would be tantamount to "no ratification".

Thus, the acts of secession the southern states enacted in 1861 were unconstitutional and had no legal basis. They were acts of revolution, rebellion, against the USA.

(06-30-2015 06:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

If a county decided to leave a state, would the state permit that?

I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer.

El Paso almost became part of N.M. but it was voted down by the people.

Would Texas let El Paso go? I have no idea.

Allowing states to secede and rejoin whenever they wanted would lead to chaos.

(06-30-2015 06:34 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

If a county decided to leave a state, would the state permit that?

I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer.

El Paso almost became part of N.M. but it was voted down by the people.

Would Texas let El Paso go? I have no idea.

In a heartbeat. El Paso is a very strong Demoncratic bastion and as you Texas leans heavy Republican. That's why we had a hard time getting state monies for our projects for a long time. It's getting better.

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Yes, leave in peace to continue to own human chattel.

WTF is wrong with Civil War apologists? Why would you value discredited apology above the honesty and integrity of clearly understanding and stating that the cause of the Civil War was slavery?

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Let's check with the garrison at Fort Sumter for a second opinion.

(06-30-2015 07:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Yes, leave in peace to continue to own human chattel.

WTF is wrong with Civil War apologists? Why would you value discredited apology above the honesty and integrity of clearly understanding and stating that the cause of the Civil War was slavery?

You just don't know much about the Civil War and keep spouting off inaccuracies and demonstrating your limited understanding of it.

If Lincoln had told the North he was fighting the war to free the slaves, he wouldn't have had an army. It was the biggest issue, but not the only one. Most of the southern soldiers didn't have slaves and weren't fighting to keep slavery. They were fighting to defend their homes and states.

(06-30-2015 07:27 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Let's check with the garrison at Fort Sumter for a second opinion.

They had plenty of chances to leave South Carolina territory, but chose not to. They were viewed as an occupying army.

(06-30-2015 07:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Yes, leave in peace to continue to own human chattel.

WTF is wrong with Civil War apologists? Why would you value discredited apology above the honesty and integrity of clearly understanding and stating that the cause of the Civil War was slavery?

Then I challenge you to provide the U.S. Govt Document stating that reason.

Now there is the Corwin Amendment that was passed by both houses and Lincoln's approval that granted Slavery in the U.S. Forever.

Feel free to discuss.

(06-30-2015 07:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Yes, leave in peace to continue to own human chattel.

WTF is wrong with Civil War apologists? Why would you value discredited apology above the honesty and integrity of clearly understanding and stating that the cause of the Civil War was slavery?

Why do you resist to acknowledge that at precisely April 12, 1961 the Northern States had 1 million more slaves than the 7 that seceded ?? It was about Slavery ,.. Right ??

(06-30-2015 07:27 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Let's check with the garrison at Fort Sumter for a second opinion.

They were such ***** cats that Maj Anderson could only take 36 hours of attack. Didn't hang around long enough to ask.

(06-30-2015 06:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why is it wrong for states to secede? Isn't this hypocritical in light of the U.S.'s stance on Russia's annexation of Crimea and now Ukraine? What law directs an anti-secession course? IDK, just saying.

I personally would not mind at all if there was a mechanism for secession in the US constitution, a clause describing a procedure for doing so. If the people of a state want their state to leave the USA, fine with me.

But, the fact of the matter is that there never has been any such provision in our constitution. And furthermore, the historical record makes it clear that when the 13 former British colonies were forming the USA, ratification of the constitution by a state was regarded as permanent and irrevocable.

Heck, when New York was debating whether to ratify, its legislature wanted to approve ratification, but with the caveat that New York reserved the right to rescind ratification and leave the Union at any time. Alexander Hamilton told their delegation that ratification was permanent and that if New York enacted their ratification document, it would be tantamount to "no ratification".

Thus, the acts of secession the southern states enacted in 1861 were unconstitutional and had no legal basis. They were acts of revolution, rebellion, against the USA.

That is false. Please read the Federalist Papers that back up he Constitution.

(06-30-2015 07:59 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:27 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 07:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Don't pick fights and then pout when you get your ass beat.

They didn't pick a fight. They wanted to leave in peace.

Let's check with the garrison at Fort Sumter for a second opinion.

They were such ***** cats that Maj Anderson could only take 36 hours of attack. Didn't hang around long enough to ask.

I'm just glad you acknowledged it was an attack.