Secession, right or wrong?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
The question is how did the framers of the Constitution intend it to be interpreted? I don't know what was intended. Was the Union a club or a prison? Both have rules while you are there. The difference between the two is you can leave a club, but if you leave a prison, WE WILL BRING YOU BACK! [:D]

Thanks, good analogy. Question to all: would you rather live in a club, or a prison?

The funny thing is that it was Britain that started off by trying to stop secession by force; and yet in more recent times Britain has seemed more like a club. In the 20th century, it lost its Empire placidly enough, and now there's talk of Scotland splitting off as well. The idea of sending in the Army to conquer Scotland seems absurd; I don't think anyone would seriously consider it.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
I mean, take Florida. Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be, if instead of waiting until the ACW to try and secede, it had done so right after purchase from Spain??? "Hey, United States, Florida here...say...now I know you guys just spent a TON of $$$ buying us from Spain (and btw...thanks!), but you know...well, we just had this convention, and, well, um, we decided we'd like to secede. So...BYE! And once again, thanks for buying our independance from Spain, that was real SWELL of ya!!! Kisses!"

LOL. But this is the sort of absurdity you get from the theory that there is this inherent right of secession.

The absurdity was in the USA "buying" Florida from Spain in the first place. If the people of Florida wanted to be part of the USA, they should have just invoked their inherent right of secession from Spain, and saved the USA some money. [:)]

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Thanks, good analogy. Question to all: would you rather live in a club, or a prison?

The funny thing is that it was Britain that started off by trying to stop secession by force; and yet in more recent times Britain has seemed more like a club. In the 20th century, it lost its Empire placidly enough, and now there's talk of Scotland splitting off as well. The idea of sending in the Army to conquer Scotland seems absurd; I don't think anyone would seriously consider it.

Some prisons can be pretty swanky, plus three square meals a day. [:D]

As a nation Britain had an opportunity to mature. There were occasions in the past where they did use military force to return Scotland to the fold. This day and age, I believe there are still nations that will use military force to reign in a rebellious region. China comes to mind.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
...Any wiggle room as to what this means is completely eliminated by the final article XIII: "And the articles of this confederation shall be INVIOLABLY observed by every state, and the union shall be PERPETUAL;..." http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/articles/9.html

I don't see the problem. The union would still exist after any of the states seceded. Their leaving did not affect the existence of that union - it merely changed the size of the membership. Remember that the size of the membership changed every time a state joined the confederation so varying the membership was never seen as a problem. But then of course the Confederation ceased to be and was replaced by the United States. So how come states could leave the 'perpetual' confederation but were not allowed to leave the 'perpetual' Union?

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
The absurdity was in the USA "buying" Florida from Spain in the first place. If the people of Florida wanted to be part of the USA, they should have just invoked their inherent right of secession from Spain, and saved the USA some money.

You are presuming that Spain had a representative government which allocated rights to the people living under its control. Not so. The inhabitants of Spanish Florida had no state constitution to give them a sovereign existence ergo any move to set up a local government had no formal legal protection. Same sort of thing as if (say) the western provinces of Virginia decided to set up their own government in opposition to rule from Richmond. That would certainly be illegal [:D]



BTW has everyone noticed that since they released the d@mned game our thread dropped onto the second page? D@mned cheeky of Matrix to interrupt our conversation I thought. [:-]

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
...Any wiggle room as to what this means is completely eliminated by the final article XIII: "And the articles of this confederation shall be INVIOLABLY observed by every state, and the union shall be PERPETUAL;..." http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/articles/9.html

I don't see the problem. The union would still exist after any of the states seceded. Their leaving did not affect the existence of that union - it merely changed the size of the membership. Remember that the size of the membership changed every time a state joined the confederation so varying the membership was never seen as a problem. But then of course the Confederation ceased to be and was replaced by the United States. So how come states could leave the 'perpetual' confederation but were not allowed to leave the 'perpetual' Union?

Well, no, if you notice, the framers of the AoC were very particular about the size of the Union...it was a Union of exactly 13 enumerated states, spelled out in the very title of the document. A perpetual union of specifically named 13 states. This means no secession. Firm. Inviolable.

'Cause remember, a big purpose here is the formation of a wartime military alliance...and in furtherence of that, they quite naturally did not want any state to have the right to sign a seperate peace with the British. Like Franklin said, they all had to hang together, or surely they would all hang seperately. Thus secession had to be a no no. It's the only logical interpretation.

Now the document had provisions for adding new colonies...interestingly, Canada was to be automatically admitted if it ever chose to join...other breakaway "colonies" would have to apply and be voted on (makes me wonder who they had in mind here...the West Indies?) to join this firm inviolable perpetual union.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
Now the document had provisions for adding new colonies...interestingly, Canada was to be automatically admitted if it ever chose to join...other breakaway "colonies" would have to apply and be voted on (makes me wonder who they had in mind here...the West Indies?) to join this firm inviolable perpetual union.

So was this union to be dissolved and reformed every time someone joined?
Or maybe there was to be an inner circle of 13 who had a seperate relationship with late coming states?
Or maybe they just didn't think about what it all meant in sufficient detail.

[Twotribes]

Your ignoring, willfully I suspect , the point. The States never had a right to leave the Union without first getting Federal permission or changing the document. Changing the document being a formal process involving ALL the States, not just a few that wanted to change it.

The Constitution was drafted from a convention that was redoing the Articles of Confederation. Every State was represented and had a hand in either writing it or changing it before voting on accepting it. There was never a right to leave on ones own say so. Since there never was this right, how is it they suddenly "inheriently" had this right? More to the point, again I ask, how is it that Federal Power is granted over State power but the State can then just quit if it doesnt like the Federal authority or majority rule?

And I do love how Jonathan keeps trying to twist the Union into some vile evil organization bent on the usurption of peoples rights and privaleges.

And I must take exception to this notion that England just willingly gave away her 'Territories" Ireland fought LONG and hard for freedom, right up to the moment the majority of it was freed. South Africa fought for freedom at the turn of the 20th century and lost and was maintained in the Union until after WW2. India did not just get released. all through the 30's and 40's Indians died because the British had no desire to release India.

As I recall in the 30's a certain General even tried to drive a tank into a compound to more easily machinegun the peaceful Indian Protesters, failing that he just had his men shoot them. So much for this "peaceful" release we keep hearing about.

I am done though mostly, game is out, time to go kill what ever enemy I chose in game. I will check the sight now and again and may respond but it probably wont be nearly as often as I have,

Fun time was had by me. I do enjoy a good arguement. And yes, generally when one is argueing, neither side changes their position ( though I must admit I do learn things from arguements).

No hard feelings I hope.

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
Now the document had provisions for adding new colonies...interestingly, Canada was to be automatically admitted if it ever chose to join...other breakaway "colonies" would have to apply and be voted on (makes me wonder who they had in mind here...the West Indies?) to join this firm inviolable perpetual union.

So was this union to be dissolved and reformed every time someone joined?
Or maybe there was to be an inner circle of 13 who had a seperate relationship with late coming states?
Or maybe they just didn't think about what it all meant in sufficient detail.

Option 1: Impossible, barring amendment the AoC were Perpetual. Option 2: Extremely doubtful. Option 3: Without a doubt! [:)]

And the point is largely moot in any case as no new arrivals ever applied. But it's clear they were establishing a firm perpetual inviolable union, with any hypothetical joinees getting on a one-way track. That seems to have their intent, based on all the strong anti-secession language throughout the document.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I am done though mostly, game is out, time to go kill what ever enemy I chose in game. I will check the sight now and again and may respond but it probably wont be nearly as often as I have,

Does this mean you are seceding from this discussion? [:D]

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The Constitution was drafted from a convention that was redoing the Articles of Confederation. Every State was represented and had a hand in either writing it or changing it before voting on accepting it. ...

Except for the states that were formed after the writing of the Constitution... but please don't let reality affect your dogma [:D]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Since there never was this right, how is it they suddenly "inherently" had this right?

Moral rights are independent of law and exist regardless of it. That's one reason why a lot of this legal discussion is rather futile.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
And I do love how Jonathan keeps trying to twist the Union into some vile evil organization bent on the usurpation of peoples rights and privileges.

The USA is not an evil country, as countries go. But the idea that you're entitled to kill people to stop them from leaving your club... That's an evil idea, and I don't understand how anyone in modern times can see it otherwise.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
And I must take exception to this notion that England just willingly gave away her 'Territories" Ireland fought LONG and hard for freedom, right up to the moment the majority of it was freed. South Africa fought for freedom at the turn of the 20th century and lost and was maintained in the Union until after WW2. India did not just get released. all through the 30's and 40's Indians died because the British had no desire to release India.

True, the willingness to let go of territory came to Britain only gradually during the 20th century. It was naturally reluctant to let go of India and Ireland, because India was so huge and Ireland so close. But in the end it all slipped away, and by the time I was born Britain seemed resigned to having an ex-Empire. Though I did spend a couple of years in Nigeria while it was still part of the Empire (it became independent in 1960; I remember there were fireworks).

I don't think the Boer War was really a case of South Africa as a whole fighting for freedom: it was more of a civil war in South Africa between Dutch settlers and British settlers. As I understand it; I'm no specialist in South African history.

[Twotribes]

Countries are NOT people. You have this annoying habit of ascribing human processes to an entity that is NOT human.

[Twotribes]

Ohh and as a matter of a point.... No one actually has an involate right to leave the Country either. People are routinely stopped for numerous reasons and their passports taken away. Your Government does it as well, the only recourse then is to go to Mexico or Canada and try and find some country that doesnt require a passport, or get a fake passport. OR go to an embassy and apply for asylum or citizenship and hope they will takle you.

In Europe of course you have numerous countries you can go to without a passport, BUT here they are going to start requiring a passport to enter the US from any foreign entry point, Canada and Mexico included.

So much for that INNATE right you have laid claim to.

[Twotribes]

I have covered the States AFTER the creation of the Constitution, they were ALL formed from Government land ( Federal Government land) The Country owned the land and allowed people to settle on it, in some cases buying in some cases aquiring through grants of one type or another. In any case every State after the first 13 (except Texas) were owned wholey by the Federal overnment, there is no reason to believe the Government would agree to allow the loss of land that it PAID for.

In reply to Greyshaft.

EDIT : forgot Texas...

In the case of Texas when it was admitted into the Union it owed the US Government a huge pile of cash. A lot was forgiven and portions of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and a couple other states were ceded, in the sense that Texas dropped all claims to the land in question. So while it was never Federal land it was PAID for by Federal dollars, from citizens , the majority probably dead when Texas tried to leave the Union.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
In any case every State after the first 13 (except Texas) were owned wholey by the Federal overnment, there is no reason to believe the Government would agree to allow the loss of land that it PAID for.
EDIT : forgot Texas...

You also forgot West Virginia... [:D][:D][:D]

I'm not a US citizen so I have no axe to grind one way or the other. Makes no nevermind to me whether the Confederacy or the Union won the war.

You might have some interesting points to discuss Twotribes, but your total disregard for providing accurate and SPECIFIC references for your claims makes responding to your posts rather futile.

[Twotribes]

Actually I would have to say West Virginia was a violation of the Constitution. The document is clear, no state can be made from another state without the express permission of that state. As I understand it West Virginia was created without Virginia's permission. Granted they were in rebellion for a time, but the rules is the rules.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
In any case every State after the first 13 (except Texas) were owned wholey by the Federal overnment, there is no reason to believe the Government would agree to allow the loss of land that it PAID for.
EDIT : forgot Texas...

You also forgot West Virginia... [:D][:D][:D]

I'm not a US citizen so I have no axe to grind one way or the other. Makes no nevermind to me whether the Confederacy or the Union won the war.

You might have some interesting points to discuss Twotribes, but your total disregard for providing accurate and SPECIFIC references for your claims makes responding to your posts rather futile.

How much more specific do I need to be? I have sited the portions of the Constitution that apply. OVER and OVER. Granted I havent printed word for word here, but as far as i can tell everyone that can reach this forum is more than capable of goggling to a copy of the Constitution and reading those Articles and sections I listed.

If I knew how to paste and copy in this forum I would have done that. But again it isnt neccassary. As far as i can tell the grousing is nothing more than a red herring attempt to distract from my points. It isnt like there are different copies of the Constitution, and almost all are annoitated to indicate amendment changes, so you can hardly claim that was a problem.

Anyone that reads , for example, Article I and understands the english language can hardly claim they couldnt find the specific enumerated powers of the Federal Government. Though we did have at least one poster here trying that very tac. Article II and Article III also are very clear as to what powers the Federal Government has and that those powers supercede ANY State law or Constitution. And of Course Article IV makes it abundantly clear that States are junior partners with limited powers.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Countries are NOT people. You have this annoying habit of ascribing human processes to an entity that is NOT human.

Countries are people. They're made up of people. The people who die in wars are not non-human entities.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
No one actually has an involate right to leave the Country either. People are routinely stopped for numerous reasons and their passports taken away.

Yes, governments often violate people's moral rights. I'm aware of it. Just one reason why I'm not fond of governments...

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
In any case every State after the first 13 (except Texas) were owned wholey by the Federal overnment, there is no reason to believe the Government would agree to allow the loss of land that it PAID for.

The land has been there for millions of years, no-one created it, so no-one has any moral right to own it. The US government's habit of paying for tracts of land was a quaint old-fashioned idea. I suppose seceding states could offer to pay back the money, if they felt it was appropriate. I'm not sure whether it is or not. Morally, it's an interesting question.

[histgamer]

You all seem to think the government owns the land. When in fact it was clearly the idea of the framers of our constitution that people owned land their own property and in only specific circumstances was the government allowed to take that away, and if they did they had to compensate you for it.

The government does not own the land, however we as citizens allow the government to govern the land with which all of us live in. However should the government lose the support of us the governed they would have no right to use our land for any purpose.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
...
You might have some interesting points to discuss Twotribes, but your total disregard for providing accurate and SPECIFIC references for your claims makes responding to your posts rather futile.

How much more specific do I need to be? I have sited the portions of the Constitution that apply. OVER and OVER. Granted I havent printed word for word here,...

Well duh!!! that is exactly the point that I (and others) have been telling you. If you want to quote a document to back up your point of view then you ARE expected to print it word for word. The fact that you haven't done this has seriously crippled your credibility.

Try submitting an assignment in Law School (or any other discipline really) without citing your references and see how far you get. Simply saying that 'the information is in there somewhere' will not get you a passing grade.