• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Right To Secede?

I focused a great deal on the Civil War and Reconstruction era during the early part of grad school. I think Lincoln made the right decisions, even if they stand in the face of his own ideology.
 
polisciguy said:
I focused a great deal on the Civil War and Reconstruction era during the early part of grad school. I think Lincoln made the right decisions, even if they stand in the face of his own ideology.
Click to expand...

did you know Lincoln stated secession was legal in 1854.

federalist 39-- Madison-- Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

read WILLIAM RAWLE..View of the Constitution published in 1825, he states any state can leave the union at any time, however it must be though peace, not by hostile action, if so the federal government would be to bring it back into the union.

he also states that every state must be republican, it a state becomes a monarchy or a democracy..it must leave the union

William Rawle (April 28, 1759 – April 12, 1836) was an American lawyer in Philadelphia, who in 1791 was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania. He was a founder and first president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and for 40 years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania.
 
ernst barkmann said:
did you know Lincoln stated secession was legal in 1854.

federalist 39-- Madison-- Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

read WILLIAM RAWLE..View of the Constitution published in 1825, he states any state can leave the union at any time, however it must be though peace, not by hostile action, if so the federal government would be to bring it back into the union.

he also states that every state must be republican, it a state becomes a monarchy or a democracy..it must leave the union

William Rawle (April 28, 1759 – April 12, 1836) was an American lawyer in Philadelphia, who in 1791 was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania. He was a founder and first president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and for 40 years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was aware of these things. Lincoln the Congressman was very different from Lincoln the President. But, likewise, the situations he faced were infinitely different as well.
 
polisciguy said:
Yes, I was aware of these things. Lincoln the Congressman was very different from Lincoln the President. But, likewise, the situations he faced were infinitely different as well.
Click to expand...

then you know why the south was angry, becuase the federal government had been siding with the north against the south for decades over issues of trade.

things like the 1828 traffic act.
 
Yes, certainly. This was one of the most complex times in History, and infinitely fascinating to read about.
 
joko104 said:
I see angry white male Ron Paulites are still cursing Abraham Lincoln. Angry white males have been cursing Abraham Lincoln since before he became president. They so hated him becoming president they open fired and overran a federal military base to seize the weapons and defeat the federal government under Lincoln's command. And, in the view of those few angry white men, Lincoln as commander-in-chief should have said "hey, no big deal, you wealthiest in the country mega-super-rich slaveholding men can just each start your own little slave empires if that's what you want to do.
Click to expand...
Damn Democrats...
 
captainawesome said:
There is no right to leave the union. The supreme court did not settle the issue. The civil war settled it. The Declaration of Independence didn't give us the right to leave England it was just justification for war. War gave us the right. So unless and until a state, group of states or individuals acting in coordination have the war power to win against this government they have no authority to leave.
Click to expand...

Yeah? and who is going to fight that war on behalf of the federal government?

You think for a second in our present day the US military would fight that war????

If a state really wanted to they could secede without a shot being fired. Furthermore there is no way the US military could even handle a strong and numbered civilian militia. 500,000 isn't an unreasonable number to expect as far as a militia army....

The US armed forces would get slaughtered in any civil war, not to mention many in the armed forces wouldn't fight against their compatriots....
 
Mr.Nick said:
The US armed forces would get slaughtered in any civil war, not to mention many in the armed forces wouldn't fight against their compatriots....
Click to expand...

That sounds like what the leaders of the South said before the last Civil War.
 
rocket88 said:
That sounds like what the leaders of the South said before the last Civil War.
Click to expand...

And this isn't 1860 either.... Not to mention just about every man/young man between the ages of 13 and 40 fought in the civil war.

You think your typical progressive anti-gun hippie/yuppy is willing to take up arms and do a damn thing??

If **** went down progressives would go running for the closest stone they could find and hide. Not to mention the military would do absolutely nothing because half the damn military would refuse to fight...

The government would get destroyed in any civil war, because the armed militias would severely outnumber the military... What political party is going to stand up for their fascist government? -- oh yeah, progressives - the same progressives that are anti-gun and whom couldn't survive without government pulling their weight....

That is the difference between the Civil War and now....

You know, Stalin said that it wasn't the US military he feared if he was to invade the US - it was the armed populace that he feared -- and he had every reason to believe that and rightly so. Iraq is a perfect example of this....

There are more people willing to take up arms and fight for freedom in the United States than the there are US service men and woman, and that's not factoring in those who would quickly desert and fight for freedom.
 
carlinkid said:
States DO have the authority to leave the Union.
Click to expand...
 It wouldn't be that hard initially, as federal military and law enforcement do not have strong presences in certain states. however, in states like Texas it would be hard because of the amount of federal presence including Border Guards, Active and Reserve Military, etc
Click to expand...




This was all settled back in the Civil War, when the North whipped the South and made a lot of Bubbas like it.

No states will be seceding from the Union, but some far right losers will be running their mouths about this topic until Hell freezes over.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The government would get destroyed in any civil war, because the armed militias would severely outnumber the military... What political party is going to stand up for their fascist government? -- oh yeah, progressives - the same progressives that are anti-gun and whom couldn't survive without government pulling their weight....
Click to expand...

I don't know where you meet these progressives that don't have jobs, but if they're talking to you, seek professional help because they're not real.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't know where you meet these progressives that don't have jobs, but if they're talking to you, seek professional help because they're not real.
Click to expand...

You ever see a ghetto???

A ****ing housing project??

You know Obama's voting base????

Aren't you from Chicago anyways???

Go to the West Side or the South Side... The only jobs they have is selling dope, robbing and killing their peers.

Furthermore, I wasn't merely speaking of "jobs" I was talking about personal responsibility.... Ban soda (im too tempted government save me from my fat), ban guns (I don't want people getting shot by progressive gang bangers), ban free speech (I don't want to be offended) etc....

You see - the nanny state.
 
Yes. But you don't ask for permission to secede you force the state at the point of a gun to leave you be and let your country secede...Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Simple.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't know where you meet these progressives that don't have jobs, but if they're talking to you, seek professional help because they're not real.
Click to expand...

RepubLoons used to use Liberal as their favorite cuss word attached to terms like "nanny-state" and "gang-banger". Now it's progress--ive. No, Negative, Nada--RepubLieGoons are now against their former ideas. With primaries, they can'tor be for anything.
 
NIMBY said:
RepubLoons used to use Liberal as their favorite cuss word attached to terms like "nanny-state" and "gang-banger". Now it's progress--ive. No, Negative, Nada--RepubLieGoons are now against their former ideas. With primaries, they can'tor be for anything.
Click to expand...

Personally Im against progressives of either parry. Thats the problem nowdays, we dont have a conservative party. We have one party for big government and another for even bigger government.
 
How about progressives 100 years ago that saved our National parks? Arizona wanted to commercialize the Grand Canyon! The Gilded/Elite/Poor Conservative/Libertarian-Right coalition was weak back then. Most would call Ike a progressive today for his Interstate system that OTR drivers owe their jobs to yet we can't get a Transportation bill.

It should concern all Americans that the House is on "PAUSE" with everything since Boehner's new meme is to kill more laws than write them as we grow larger and more high-tech every day. The truth is he can't even get a majority of the majority on anything, if just "because", and will lose his his Speakership if he tries to put anything on the floor.

To me, being against progressives means being for the monopolies that T. Roosevelt busted, allowing coal companies to continue employing 9-YO with missing fingers and toes, being against safe regulations that prevent continued oil blow-outs. Americans have a short memory on so many things like the last two depressions caused by banks and many will then say "that didn't happen" or "give me a link" when they know damn well they are faced with the ugly truth of corrupt, crony capitalism which is not just centered in one party. Thank you for listening.
Gawain said:
Personally Im against progressives of either parry. Thats the problem nowdays, we dont have a conservative party. We have one party for big government and another for even bigger government.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
How about progressives 100 years ago that saved our National parks? Arizona wanted to commercialize the Grand Canyon! The Gilded/Elite/Poor Conservative/Libertarian-Right coalition was weak back then. Most would call Ike a progressive today for his Interstate system that OTR drivers owe their jobs to yet we can't get a Transportation bill.

It should concern all Americans that the House is on "PAUSE" with everything since Boehner's new meme is to kill more laws than write them as we grow larger and more high-tech every day. The truth is he can't even get a majority of the majority on anything, if just "because", and will lose his his Speakership if he tries to put anything on the floor.

To me, being against progressives means being for the monopolies that T. Roosevelt busted, allowing coal companies to continue employing 9-YO with missing fingers and toes, being against safe regulations that prevent continued oil blow-outs. Americans have a short memory on so many things like the last two depressions caused by banks and many will then say "that didn't happen" or "give me a link" when they know damn well they are faced with the ugly truth of corrupt, crony capitalism which is not just centered in one party. Thank you for listening.
Click to expand...

Yes them as well. Teddy sucked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom