- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Texas seceding is all talk, talk, talk.
And it is very boeing talk.
Texas seceding is all talk, talk, talk.
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.And it is very boeing talk.
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.
Right, coming back the states were forced to accept it. And that was done. Sad story... now they can get over it.
Okay, I concede both your points. However, it does appear that after Article 1, section 9 expired congress could ban slavery and I'm not seeing where slavery is protected after 1808....
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution
If the land belonged to SC then there would have been no reason to add in the 'serve processes' clause.
It only retained Service to Process jurisdiction.
What year are you talking about? It looks like your talking about 1861 instead of 1838 when S. Carolina ceded the land to the US government. That might be where your confusion lies.
The Constitution is all about respecting contracts and recognizing property rights and the US has a 1838 contract that ceded the land to it and that didn't go away just because S. Carolina decided to secede in 1861.
Interesting, apparently Fort Sumter was built on a man made island. The rocks and land fill came by ship from New England. So whatever sovereignty S.Carolina had was under water. lol Technically, wouldn't the land belong to New England? lol jk
OK, having just read the Articles of Confederation again - it's been awhile - these are the last two paragraphs:
(emphasis added)
So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.
So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.
So yourConstitutional argument isn't even based on the Constitution? The wording of a treaty doesn't mean much as far as the "right to secede."
The US government never recognized S. Carolina's succession and never recognized the South as separate from the Union nor recognized the confederate government. They never left the union. Sorry....It doesn't matter when South Carolina let the Fed. govt. use the land. In 1861 all of that was finished when South Carolilna seceded.
Quantrill
CHAPTER XLIV
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS OF THE CIVIL WAR
....Technically, the uprising could be held to be a rebellion, and it was so named and so considered. All through the four years of conflict, the government studiously refrained from recognizing the Confederacy as a de jure nation or combination of nations....
However tenuous the insurrection theory might seem to be to foreign governments, and however much the actual conduct of the war distinguished it from an ordinary suppression of an utterly lawless uprising, there is no great difficulty in recognizing the right of a government, when faced by a powerful opponent, to accord to the opponent the full rights of a belligerent. So the war was of a dual character: in strict theory it was an insurrection; but in the conduct of the war the insurgents were treated as forces of an independent government.
McLaughlin: Constitutional History of the United States (1936)
"....that during the existing insurrection ... all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commissions...."
"....We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier, to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have even been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. ....
Abraham Lincoln "Last Address" Transcript
Feed that line to your buddies but don't bother doing it here. SC made an agreement with the government then didn't want to honor it. They should have thought of it before they handed over the deed and the Fed spent money building on site. Did they bother to give or even offer the Fed money for the improvements? Of course not. They knew what they were doing was wrong - they just didn't give a ****.The land was South Carolinas. The Fed. govt was given use of the land for whatever reasons and whatever conditions. When a state secedes, she is no longer part of the Union. The Fed. govt. leaves. Its tresspassing.
They signed the Declaration, which plainly showed they were "The United States", then they signed the Articles, which showed the same thing. You started quoting the Articles to back your claim, not me. Now that the Articles quit working for you, you want to leave them behind and move the goal posts again. But by the time you get to the Constitution it all over with. You backtracked to those other documents originally because you were spinning your wheels trying to use the Constitution.Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.
This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
Sure, the union based on the Confederation. Shame they threw it out the window and we are under a different Constitution. A different union.
Quantrill
Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.
This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.
They signed the Declaration, which plainly showed they were "The United States", then they signed the Articles, which showed the same thing. You started quoting the Articles to back your claim, not me. Now that the Articles quit working for you, you want to leave them behind and move the goal posts again. But by the time you get to the Constitution it all over with. You backtracked to those other documents originally because you were spinning your wheels trying to use the Constitution.
So why is that "treaty" less valid than others?
The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.The articles have not quit working for me. They still clearly show, as does the treaty of paris, that the colonies were free, sovereign, and independent stats. The fact that it had no expiration and was thus perpetual means nothing. If a state is sovereign (which the former colonies were), then entering into a treaty does not indicate that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, especially when that treaty explicitly indicates they they retain their preexisting sovereignty.
Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.So, having established that the states were sovereign prior to entering into their first confederation under the articles, and also establishing the fact that they retained their sovereignty under these articles, the question then becomes, when did they state that they were relinquishing their sovereignty under the constitution, and where in the constitution does is the prohibition against any of the sovereign states leaving the compact?
The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.
Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.
The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.You continue to insist that the former colonies were never sovereign states despite the fact that the are expressly described as free, sovereign, and independent in the articles?
The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.
I take that phrase, "free, sovereign, and independent", to mean the States were that way with respect to each other. In other words, no State had any rights over any other State. I think it also means what the 10th Amendment actually says, that States have all the power except what they handed over to the Fed.Agree to disagree, I suppose.