Who Do YOU View As Right; Part 2; Stuart turns Yankee

Oppie! Does this mean we'll be seeing you a little more often? Whatever you can manage bro, good to see you.

Btw, I'm shocked to find that Oppie's entire opinion on the Civil War has been changed since the last time we've discussed this... I guess miracles do happen lol.

They wouldn't put Lincoln on the ballot, how is that fair.

How is threatening to leave the union in 1856 if someone they don't like gets elected president fair?

The take on states rights in some posts seems to be any state can do whatever it wants, forget any kind of social contract.

Well, I never heard that they refused to put Lincoln's name on the ballot... But aside from that, if any whole entity, such as a state, wishes to withdraw from any union, isn't it their natural right to be able to do so, as a completely seperate group of people in itself? Who is the Federal government to tell the united people of Louisiana that they have no choice but to subject themselves to that government, under threat of force? It goes against everything the U.S. has ever stood for. So, call it sour grapes if you want, but try looking at it from both sides.

NOPE. ACCESS DENIED BY ARTICLE 1 SECTION TEN. LOOK IT UP BOOK WORM

Since sStates Rights implies that any state can join and then leave a nation or confederation for any reason--the same should apply to cities and towns also.

Also, how does any nation or confederation function if members can come and go as they please?


The arguments seem to be essentially anarchist--that is, there are no rules.

It never helped either that the Constitution did not have a stand on it. The South went, we can leave, since it doesn't oppose it. The North said, but, it doesn't support it either.

You got it: strict constructionalists vs. loose constructionalists have been, are now and always will be a problem for any country.

Think of it this way:

One side says "Anything not forbidden is permitted"

The other says "Anything not permitted is forbidden."

And I admit I am not sure which side I would pick in the abstract: I tend to take each issue separately and would have to examine my choices across the board to see which side I tend towards.

The Opposition wrote:

NOPE. ACCESS DENIED BY ARTICLE 1 SECTION TEN. LOOK IT UP BOOK WORM

Yep, same old Oppie.

Article I Sec. 10 only applies to States within the Union, Oppie. When the South Carolina State Legislature voted to secceed, they didn't vote to join the Confederate States of America, because there was no such thing at that time. South Carolina became its own entity, a nation in itself, just like Texas had been for a number of years before joining the Union. After seperating themselves from the United States of America, the southern states then created a confederation: the Confederate States of America.

If you're going to try and site a part of the Constitution, know what it means, and how it applies. Historians have admitted for years that the Constitution in no way obstructs the States' right to secceed. And don't think you're the first to have ever read Art. I Sec. 10 of the Constitution.

Rebel Thunder wrote:

Also, how does any nation or confederation function if members can come and go as they please?

Think of the United Nations... None of the world's nations are required to be a member of this body, and aren't forced to join or leave (generally). And yet it functions... to some degree.

Rebel Thunder wrote:

Think of it this way:

One side says "Anything not forbidden is permitted"

The other says "Anything not permitted is forbidden."

That's true, Reb, in any nation other than the U.S. Here, it is specifically, and historically, stated, that our Constitution functions in the way of the latter (in regards to power held by government). The Constitution serves only to act as a check on government; there is no check upon the People in our democratic-republic, save common law. Anyone who thinks of the Constitution in the way of the former, in regards to the government, simply doesn't have a clue concerning the purpose of this legendary document, and the forefathers' intentions for this nation.
Btw, I didn't aim any of this at Reb specifically, I realize he was only putting forth both sides of an issue. This is only my opinion on how the Constitution was meant to be 'interpreted'.

And that's all from me, until next month. Cya everybody!

The constitution does not function as you say it does, because states are not specifically permitted to leave the union.

By their fruit's you shall know them. Besides, Republican was just another name for Whig.

Rebel thunder wrote:

The constitution does not function as you say it does, because states are not specifically permitted to leave the union.

Did I assert that the constitution limited the rights and privileges of the States? To the contrary, the whole point of the Constitution is to reign in the power the central government holds over the States. The States are regarded as sovereign entities. The Bill of Rights pertains to the absolute, inalienable rights of the People; the rest specifies the limits of the federal govt. For you to argue against secession, based on the fact that "states are not specifically permitted to leave the union", is baseless. The U.S. Constitution only intends to limit the powers of the central government, and simultaneously outlines rules by which the joining States must function. But the principle "all that is not mentioned is forbidden" only applies to the Fed. Govt., obviously, not to the States. Remember, the men who constructed our government were the powers of the seperate States, and sought to protect their individual States, not to take power away from them.

But did they want their states to be able to dissolve the union any time any state wanted to for any reason? Did they think any state had a right to take over any federal property the state desired whenever the state wnated to?

That's what you seem to be impling.

Well..he has a point Stuart. Argue generality if you want, but the constituion was designed with a union of the states in mind. Not to provide avenues for them to dispurse.

The Opposition wrote:

Well..he has a point Stuart. Argue generality if you want, but the constituion was designed with a union of the states in mind. Not to provide avenues for them to dispurse.

Yes Oppie, I agree, the nation was designed around a 'perpetual union', as stated in the preamble of the constitution. However, the constitution, designed as it was to hold the power of the central government in check, never prohibited the right of secession to the States. Of course, this is more of a technicallity based upon what is not stated, rather than what is. But I can understand if the framers never sat around and discussed the manner in which this government they were creating could be disbanded.

However, from a legal standpoint, the right of secession is not specifically prohibited to the States anywhere in the Constitution, and therefore, that right is assumed to be reserved to the States, as stated in the 10th Amendment. And the legal standpoint is all that really matters, if we're looking to the constitution for the basis of our arguments. Otherwise, we accept that the South was fighting its own second war for independence, just as the first thirteen colonies seceeded from Britain. Being Americans, none of us can find fault, I would think, with the principal of revolution, especially in the name of independence of a foreign power. The South did just that: withdraw from the current government, and declare a new nation, 'in order to form a more perfect union.'

Rebel thunder wrote:

But did they want their states to be able to dissolve the union any time any state wanted to for any reason?

Please tell me, how is the union "dissolved" by, say, one state withdrawing? Doesn't the inherent freedom of individuals and the sovereignty of states make it perfectly sensible to allow states to withdraw when they feel their needs require it? What makes the union of these "free" entities so totalitarianistic as to deny them their natural right of choosing to who and what they pay their allegiance to? It's perfectly acceptable for a U.S. citizen to move to Canada and become a citizen of that country; how is it a crime for a group of people, acting on the behest of a wide majority, to take full charge of such land as those people occupy and exercise jurisdiction over, and declare themselves independent, out of a wish to form a more perfect government to better fit their needs? The entire principle embodies the beliefs and ideals upon which this nation was founded; and yet, the Federal government took the part imperialistic Great Britain had played originally, in our nation's Second War for Independence; a war that failed, a war that saw the 'rebels' finally beaten down and conquered, those who only wished to depart in peace with their own land.

Quote :

Did they think any state had a right to take over any federal property the state desired whenever the state wnated to?

Again, the United Stated Constitution expressly states that the Federal Government may not purchase or come to own in any way land claimed by a State. The only land owned by the Federal govt. is that of the District of Columbia. The land occupied by federal fortifications and installations was expressly on loan from the respective states, and never came under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Such was the case with Fort Sumter, as we've previously discussed. The federal troops stationed in Charlestown Harbor after the secession of the state of South Carolina were in violation of that state's sovereignty as a new-found nation of its own, and were in fact committing an act of invasion. But Lincoln knew this; his entire reasoning for stationing those troops there was to provoke a forceful response from South Carolina, giving him a reason to cry foul, and give the people of the North something to rally around as they prepared to invade the Confederacy.

technicalities and liberal thinking always leads to this