Redstate

I have no problem with secession. I also have no problem with the feds expecting to negotiate any resolution of territory in a peaceful manner.

Fort Sumter could have been the Guantanamo of its day, but nope, the Rebels got greedy, and now they're known to history as the Rebels instead of the Second Founding Fathers or something.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

First! Yes, even Vermont

But, I do have my reverse secession plan.

We force Mass, VT, etc to be territories we can rape and pillage till they agree to some const amendments and repeal of the 16th.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Oh wait - on what end of the whole "rape/pillage" equation are we RedState refugees behind enemy lines supposed to be, eh?

Answer carefully, my support hangs in the balance.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The march into California will go unimpeded.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

As the old saying goes...

First rape and pillage, then burn!

And Rightly So!

HEDLEY LAMARR: What are your specialites?

CRIMINAL: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.

HEDLEY: You said rape twice.

CRIMINAL: I like rape.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Gamecock, look at my comment below about the ultimate consequences of secession. I won't repeat it all, but the point is this: a state can not secede without starting a war. That is a fact established by history. Ergo, any conspiracy to effect secession is also a conspiracy to wage war on the U.S. government. So I repeat, hang 'em. Hang 'em high.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

precedent, but given the restrictive language of the treason definition,...must wait on an act to effect same for the gallows

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

last time; the minor matter of getting a conviction of Davis, Stephens, Lee, et al. In the end, they decided they didn't want those questions answered.

In Vino Veritas

Two points:

1) We are currently engaged in two major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't you think that plotting to literally dismember the union while we have troops in the field constitutes giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy? It that doesn't reach the level of treason, then what exactly does?

2) Secession can only be accomplished through war. Any attempt by a state to secede will inevitably lead to war because the federal government is bound to resist the assault on its sovereignty. We know this because that is exactly what happened the last time any of the states attempted to secede. So in fact, the participants of that convention are conspiring to wage war on the United States government. They might not realize it, but if they get what they want war must certainly follow.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

If the Confederates don't attack Fort Sumter, then who knows how long the two sides would have peacefully coexisted.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

That's counter-factual history. The Confederates did attack Fort Sumter, and there's no use conjecturing about what would have happened if they didn't. They also prevented a union ship (Star of the West) from reaching the fort in order to resupply it. What was Lincoln going to do? He could either evacuate the fort, thereby caving in to the rebels and destroying federal authority (and his own political career), or he could try to relieve the fort, thereby starting a war. The Confederates did him a great favor by by shelling Fort Sumter because if they hadn't started the war he would have had to do so himself.

Besides, even without Sumter, there were plenty of other issues that would have led to armed conflict. For example, what would have been done about other federal property in the South like post offices, custom houses, and forts besides Sumter. What about tax revenue? Lincoln made it clear that while he would not precipitate a war, he would enforce the federal law everywhere in the nation, including the South.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Why did the Confederates fire on Sumpter? Answer, because the North refused to abandon it. Coexistence, not.

Molon Labe!

That was on the CS, whether they were determined to get that chip knocked off their shoulder, even if they had to do it themselves.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

but we can not extrapolate from that, that the USA had a policy of not initiating conflict.

Molon Labe!

you can give aid and comfort without seceding, you can secede without giving aid and comfort except in the most abstract sense. A state's secession is only an act of war if the US takes warlike action to prevent that secession. At least in the conception of the federal union that existed prior to 1865, the States were not the property of the US government, but rather the opposite. Some of us still pretty much hold to that view. It is certainly clear that all of the original thirteen plus Texas were independent sovereigns that chose to voluntarily associate with the United States. The rights and duties of those States formed from territory purchased or conquered by the US are a somewhat more interesting question.

To your second point, it is by no means settled law as opposed to settled at the point of federal bayonets. The "perpetual union" language of the Articles is conspicuously absent in the Constitution. The seceding states fastidiously seceded in the same manner that they joined the union; legislative action where that had been the manner, voter referendum where that had been the manner. As the People voluntarily joined the federal union, they voluntarily removed themselves from it. Once the States had seceded, they asked the United States to remove its troops and agents and offered the United States compensation for its property. The United States refused and in the case of Ft. Sumpter took steps to resupply and the CSA believed reinforce that federal property within the sovereign territory of the State of South Carolina. Admittedly, the hotheads in Charleston did the US a great service by firing on the fort, and even many of the most adamant secessionists opposed the action, e.g., Robert Toombs.

Every one of my military age ancestors served and many died in the service of the Army of Northern Virginia, and to paraphrase an old and not often heard anymore song, I ain't asked no pardon for anything they done. Deo Vindice

In Vino Veritas

Concerning your last sentence, yes, I agree that traitors have to be tried before they are executed. I did not intend to imply otherwise, if that is how you understood me.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Why wasn't Jefferson Davis tried for treason? Under what law was he confined to Ft. Pulaski GA for ten years? If the Consitution doesn't provide for Secession why wasn't Jefferson Davis accorded the same rights afforded to other U.S. Citizens regarding being held in prison without trial?

at Ft. Monroe, Virginia under a charge of treason for about two years before being released on bail. His bail was raise by a group of prominent citizens North and South including, inter alia, Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt. The US never proceded to trial and the charges were dropped after some years, though he was stripped of his US citizenship. His citizenship was ceremonially restored in 1978.

In Vino Veritas

... of this country, you may as well disband it entirely.

There are very few things I believe in absolutely, but the survival of the United States is one of them. Rather than see Vermont (or any other state, even my own) secede from the Union, I would glad see every traitorous secessionist in that state dangling on the end of a rope. I would even tie the rope myself.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

will alleviate that problem over time.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Yes, I'm talking about Goracle™, that wonder product that cures all global warming ills, with each tube personally blessed by Saint Al himself.

And Rightly So!

and is also a guilt-relieving fuel additive!

I couldn't figure out how to get the trademark to work in the header line.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

At least I haven't been able to so far and I've seen the results of failed attempts in header lines.

Neil, is this correct?

And Rightly So!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

In any case, your assertion does bear further study...

And Rightly So!

The answer is no, if the states convened a constitutional convention in which they abolished the union entirely that action would be legal and constitutional. It would also not be "secession" in any sense of the word. Secession is what happens when a state (or a group of states, as in 1861) decides to leave on its own accord. A state has no power to do that. If a state joins the union and accepts the jurisdiction of the federal government, then it also agrees to obey the federal government even when it makes decisions with which the state disagrees. On the other hand, if all the states, or even 3/4 of them decide to abrogate the Union, well then they have the right to do so because at that point the Union is obviously untenable anyway.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Okay, now that that is established their is another question to wrestle with. In 1860-1861 there was no provision in the Constitution that barred the power of secession to the States. The tenth amendment expressly reserved any power not denied by the Constitution to the States or to the people:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The power to leave the Union is not denied to the States in 1860 and as such it is a power retained by the States. Now, you may say the Articles of Confederation declared a "perpetual Union". That's true but the Articles of Confederation have no power in the U.S. after the creation of the Constitution.

Now the process for ratification of the Constitution was set out in Article VII of the Constitution:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

The Articles took a different view of the process for amendment:

"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." [emphasis added]

The AofC demanded unanimous consent of all States to change the provisions of the AofC. The U.S. Constitution needed only 9 states ratification to have force and effect and then only applied to those States so ratifing. The Articles of Confederation were abrogated by the creation of the U.S. Constitution and the choice of the framers to completely ignore the Articles when the Constitution was created. Each State was given the choice to join the new Union or to leave. No where in the Constitution is the Union declared to be perpetual or unending.

Therefore, the choice of the 13 Confederate States to use the same method by which they joined the Union to leave the Union was a power reserved to them under the reservation clause of the 10th Amendment and the choice to leave was not traitorus or unconstitutional.

Many of the points you raise are valid, but you have essentially reached the same faulty conclusion that the Confederates reached in 1861. Here's the fundamental problem with your argument. The 10th Amendment was intended primarily to limit the power of the federal government rather than to expand the power of the state governments. In our system of government the constitution defines and delimits the powers of both the states and the federal government. Because the Framers feared the abuse of centralized authority they chose to establish very clear limits on the power of the federal government while leaving the power of federal and local government more undefined.

However, the Framers, who were fundamentally practical men, also realized that in the future situations might come up that the Constitution did not directly address, which could lead to turf disputes between the federal governments and the states. Therefore, they built into the language of the constitution itself a prejudice in favor of state power in order to keep the federal government within strictly defined limits. That's why we have a 10th Amendment. Let me give you one example of how this works in practice. In 1789 neither the federal government nor the state governments regulated the medical profession, nor had they established any specific qualifications for practicing medicine. For all intents and purposes, a "doctor" was anybody who had enough knowledge to convince people that he was qualified to treat their illnesses. By the early 20th century the need to regulate medicine became more obvious, and because of the 10th Amendment that power was assumed to rest with the states. The federal government has encroached on that authority in several ways since then, but licensing doctors and regulating hospitals are still mostly state responsibilities.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that the 10th Amendment grants to the states the power to do literally anything that the constitution does not expressly forbid them to do, or empower the federal government to do. Following that line of argument, the fact that the constitution doesn't give the power to separate a state from the federal government means that this power must rest with the state governments. But it might just as well be the case that no such power exists at all, either for the federal government or the state governments. You argue that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the states can't secede, the states must therefore have the right to secede. But the constitution also doesn't say they can secede, nor does it stipulate any process by which they may peacefully separate from the Union.

So rather than trying to extrapolate from what the Constitution doesn't say, let's look first at what it does say about federal authority v. state authority. It does put the federal government in charge of collecting customs duties at all U.S. ports. It does empower the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate foreign commerce, to establish post offices and post roads, and to operate courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the constitution empowers the federal government, meaning primarily the president, to secure the nation against external military threats and (one of my personal favorites) to "suppress insurrections." (Article 1, Section 8) Secession impairs the ability of the federal government perform all these functions, and nowhere does the Constitution empower the states to do that. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids the states to "lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." For that matter, it also forbids the states to "enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." (Article 1, Section 10) You will note that nowhere does the constitution specify any circumstances under which a state may gain relief from these obligations and restrictions. It doesn't say "the state can't do this and that, unless it decides to secede." No, it says that the state must submit to the federal government when that government exercises its legitimate authority.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Mr. Leverkuhn,

Let me change this up a bit. Once nine states ratified the Constitution what was their relationship with the four States that had not yet ratified the Constitution?

Article 7: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

The nine states then comprised the United States. The other four had to ratify in order to join. Once they joined they too were part of the union. Why do you ask?

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Because it means those States were sovereigns with the power and the choice to join or not join. Nothing in the Constitution deprives them of that power. If a State has the power to choose to join it has the power to leave in the same manner by which it joined, unless, the Constitution it agreed to expressly deprived it of the power to leave. The U.S. Consititution does not do this.

Your point regarding the powers regarding powers denied to the States is a good one. However, those powers are only denied to the States while they are part of the Union. For example Rhode Island was the last former colony to ratify the Constitution. Until it agreed to be bound by the Constitution it could engage in all the powers denied to the States by the Constitution. Once a State chooses to leave the Constitution is no longer enforceable within that State's sovereign territory.

You may chose to debate the purpose of the tenth amendment but by its express terms powers not denied to the States are retained by the States. Therefore, the power to secede is not denied to the States. The states hold any power any other sovereign power would have unless the Constitution takes that power from them.

Sorry, wrong both on the history and the logic. First, those states were never sovereign. I know that's a popular theory, especially in Dixie where people get really antsy over this sort of thing, but it's still wrong. There are two ways you can look at this. One, the states that had failed to ratify the Articles of Confederation were still part of the old Confederation of States, which would mean that they were constituent parts of that union. Two, those states were ... nothing, having neither a federal union between themselves nor legitimate standing as independent nations. For my part, I prefer the first perspective. The only thing we know, and we know this for an historical certainty, is that none of those states were ever considered sovereign nation states themseves. We know this for several reasons:

1) They never claimed to be nation states.
2) They never engaged in diplomatic relations with other states.
3) They never maintained a standing army or navy.
4) No other state recognized them as independent nation states.
5) They never ratified their own constitutions declaring themselves to be nation states.
6) They didn't have their own customs houses.

In short, to abuse a well-worn metaphor, they weren't nation states because they didn't walk, quack, fly, or swim like nation states. The problem that you seem to have is that you've nailed your colors to the notion that somewhere between March 4, 1789, when the Constitution officially went into effect, and May 29, 1790, when RI became the last state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, something called the "Republic of Rhode Island" existed. The problem that I have with that argument is that I can't find any reference to the Republic of Rhode Island in any of my history books (and I have lots of them). Sorry, no such animal.

You doggedly insist on your expansive definition of the 10th Amendment. I am just as dogged in my denial of it. As far as I'm concerned, the tie break goes to me because you can't actually find the word "secession" or any variation thereof in the text of the Constitution, whereas I can find a passage explaining that my government has the right to "suppress insurrections." If you need another tie-break, here it is: the last time we had a war over this issue, my side won.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

of all rights! The fact that secession is not mentioned therein is meaningless. Your thinking represents the greatest fear of those who opposed the so-called Bill of Rights; that it would be held to be the exclusive articulation of rights - espressio unius est excludio alterius. The most concrete evidence that each of the original thirteen was a sovereign is the fact that they were each signatory to the treaty with England ending the War for Independence. Thus the entity recognized for treaty-making was each now-independent former colony, not the united states acting under the Articles of Confederation.

Even today, the United States cannot come into a State to "suppress insurrection" except at the behest of that State, i.e., posse comitatus law, without a specific finding that the insurrection is beyond the means of the State to control - no easy thing to demonstrate. Even before the statute, Lincoln made such a finding as a part of asking the other States to provide troops the "insurrection" in the seceding States. The US maintained the fiction that somewhere in each of those States was some "real" government and that the government established after secession was some sort of illegitimate junta. Just imagine the hue and cry had GWB made such a declaration a priori as Katrina bore down on NOLA, though he came pretty close by declaring a disaster prior to the State's request.

In any event, the armed conflict over this issue ended, this time, in November 1865, when CSS Shenandoah struck her colors in Liverpool. The "discussion," however, didn't.

In Vino Veritas

The most concrete evidence that each of the original thirteen was a sovereign is the fact that they were each signatory to the treaty with England ending the War for Independence. Thus the entity recognized for treaty-making was each now-independent former colony, not the united states acting under the Articles of Confederation.

You really must warn me when you throw in gems like this. I almost missed it. Ok, here's a link to a website that has a copy of the treaty of Paris.[1] Now click on the link that says "View Transcript." Now scroll down to the bottom of the document. The American ambassadors that signed the treaty were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. If you take five minutes to look this up in any standard history textbook you will find that Congress, not any one of the American states, appointed these men to serve as the American delegation in Congress. Nor did any of the states send their own delegations to the Paris conference. So your statement that each of the thirteen states was a signatory to the treaty is wrong.

[1] http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page6.htm

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

"Commonwealth of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation."

In Vino Veritas

Oooooh, you got me. Those entities did exist. Of course, that doesn't mean they were nation states now does it? Here's how it works, according to international law the supreme test for statehood (and yes, I mean the super dooper kind of statehood with armies and embassies and all the bells and whistles) is that the government of a clearly defined place with a clearly defined population conducts diplomatic relations with other states, usually signified by the presence of official embassies in other countries. There are other tests, but that's the big one.

And for the record, the "Commonwealth of Rhode Island" was founded in 1644 when the British Parliament, acting in the name of the King of England, gave Roger Williams a charter creating a colony by that name. Therefore, the "Commonwealth of Rhode Island" was a component of the British Empire. [1]

BTW, did you know South Carolina beat Kentucky yesterday? Yeah, I mention that because I figured it was my turn to say something irrelevant.

[1] http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_Vol_1/rhodeisl_fe...

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

But then Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris concluding the Revolution recognized all thirteen former colonies as independent, sovereign states. So by 1789 they were recognized as independent for 6 years.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

First of all, it doesn't matter what the Treaty of Paris says because in 1777 the colonies had formed themselves into one nation with the Articles of Confederation. Sure, it was a nation with a crappy and dysfunctional government, but we could say the same about Libya or Venezuela.

Second, the Treaty of Paris is actually quite muddled on this point. Article 1 says King George III "acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay ... Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." On the other hand, in the preamble to the treaty both the United States and Britain pledged "to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony."

So, two countries or fourteen? Here's how I break the tie: If there had been thirteen American nation states represented in Paris there would have been thirteen separate delegations, one from each state. Instead the U.S. Congress (not the individual states) sent one delegation composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. But in any event, the Treaty of Paris was not our constitution. Our constitution at the time – the Articles of Confederation – said we were one nation, not thirteen.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

as you are as certain that I am wrong as I am that you are wrong. Seems to be the only way to settle it.

In Vino Veritas

You challenged me. Rule 16 of the Code Duello says that the person being challenged gets to choose the weapons. I choose bon mots at a distance of forty pixels.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Republic of Texas?

It did exist, but this has nothing to do with secession. It later joined the Union, then seceded with the rest of the South.
Molon Labe!

If the States were never sovereign why did they have to be asked to join the Union and why didn't ratification of the Constitution by the 9 required by Article VII give the Constitution force and effect over all states in the U.S.?

Further, it is undisputable that some States were sovereign before joining the U.S. Texas was an independent republic before being annexed by the U.S. Hawaii was a Constitutional Monarchy before being forcibly incorporated into the U.S.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

First, they weren't asked to join. They decided to join when they ratified the new constitution. Just like they decided to submit to the new federal government in every sphere of competency delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution. That includes the one I really, really like: suppressing insurrections.

Second, because that's not what Article VII says. Just because New Hampshire's ratification meant that a union existed between nine of the thirteen states doesn't mean the new union had the right to appropriate any territory it wanted to, especially if the old union (Articles of Confederation) was still in effect for those states which hadn't joined the new one. To put it another way, the new union had as much right to appropriate Rhode Island as it did to appropriate Jamaica. Of course, now that I think about it, if we'd taken Jamaica instead of Rhode we'd have cheaper marijuana ... and no Joe Biden. Hmmmmmmm.

Third, you're right, Texas and Hawaii were independent nations before joining the union. For that matter, so was the Republic of West Florida. Prior to joining the United States all those countries exercised the rights and privileges of sovereign nation states. And then they joined our country and stopped being nation states. As far as I'm concerned, given the circumstances under which it entered the union, Hawaii is the only state that has a legitimate beef if it decides that it wants to leave the United States someday. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure life is just as unfair in Hawaii as it is in Alabama.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

But by saying this aren't you acknowlegeing that States to have the sovereign power to choose to leave the Union? What about Puerto Rico, does it have the power to choose to remove itself from the sovereignty of the U.S.?

A quick aside I hope, if nothing else, that I've shown there is clearly a good faith basis for the belief that Secession is Constitutional. That being the case it is over the top to call for people advocating for secession to be hung.

Remember, I want them tried and hung. I'm a due process guy. And these people were doing something more than advocating secession. They are trying to organize a political movement in support of secession. They are trying to gain the reins of state power to overthrow the constitution and the federal government. That is treason.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

why the manhood of The South was willing to shoulder a musket in 1861. At some point, you simply do not want to associate with people with whom you no longer want to associate and with whom at one time, you voluntarily associated. There are people, even majorities of States, that should they ever be in a postion of power sufficient to impose their will on me, that I pray to God I have the courage of my ancestors and am willing to pick up a gun - and I won't ask no pardon for anything I done.

In Vino Veritas

by means of the established political process which the Constitution has put in place. If you use a gun to resist the government that does not make you a man but a traitor. I hope it never comes to that, because I like you and I like most of what you stand for. But I like my country and my constitution more.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

That's really what it's about isn't it?

At some point, you do what you have to do. Deo Vindice

In Vino Veritas

You have repeatedly made the assertion that secession is treason. Think about this: The creation of the United States of America, the country that you profess to love, is a testament to the RIGHT OF SECESSION. The founding fathers, to a man, were all secessionists. The so-called "American Revolution" was not a revolution in the true sense, as there was never any attempt or desire to take over the British Government. It was, rather, a war of SECESSION. Thomas Jefferson expressed it this way:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of freedom, it is THE RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it. In other words, secession is not treason, it is a right of the people. If you want to hang secessionists, then you condemn all those founders who wrote the Constitution that you love.

Caleb

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” Thomas Jefferson

And their treason was much more clear than that of those that fired on Fort Sumter. Itw as clear that the colonists had no "right" to defy the King. On the other hand most assumed a state could opt out of the Union. The Lincoln rule says no.

But, treason is not per se evil or "wrong."

The reason for same defines what is just. And if this nation were to surrender to rule by 5 lawyers or if a si=ocialist appeasement majority were to use power ot surrender to foreign or domestic enemies that would give away our freedom, then...

a new revolution would be called for

see jefferson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

a P1853 Enfield, and an extra Richmond Depot Type III shell jacket in cadet GRAY. You're kinda on your own for accoutrement, but so were most of our ancestors. I wouldn't mind one more crack at that damned hill. Game?

In Vino Veritas

... fundamental ignorance of both American and British History. The Founders did not rebel against the British Crown because they thought they had a fundamental right to rebel whenever they felt like it. They rebelled because they believed that the policies of the Crown and its ministers had violated the traditional rights of the colonists as British subjects. In so doing the Crown had stepped outside of its traditional constitutional boundaries, thereby abrogating its right to rule.

You need to go beyond the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to understand specifically what the Founders were talking about. Suffice it to say that certain actions of the Crown - denying the colonists representation in Parliament, taxing the colonists without their consent, quartering soldiers in private homes, hiring mercenaries to pacify the colonies, etc. – seemed so egregious to the signers of that instrument that they felt they had no other choice but to rebel.

Not all of their arguments were valid, but on at least one point they stood firmly within the established British constitutional tradition. The Crown had endeavored to tax the colonies without their consent (i.e., without granting them representation in Parliament). It was on precisely this basis that the British had themselves deposed a monarch in 1649, and they did so again in 1688. By the time the colonists rebelled in 1776 no British monarch had ruled without Parliament for nearly a century, nor had any king levied a tax on British citizens without the consent of Parliament. In light of this long established political tradition, the colonists had every right to demand a voice in determining the kind of taxes that would be levied on them. By denying them that right, the British government had itself abrogated the terms under which it could legally govern the colonies. Thus, the King and not the colonists had severed the legal bond between Britain and her colonies.

Nothing of the sort can be said about the position of the Southern states in 1861. The federal government had taken no action injurious to their interests, nor had it in any way infringed on their rights. The Southern argument for secession can be summed up as follows: 1) The North had successfully elected a president repugnant to the South (Lincoln) who they believed might attack the institution of slavery. 2) The North had violated Southern property rights by denying them the right to take their slaves into the territories. The first argument is specious, and without evidence (Lincoln did not, in fact, intend to abolish slavery in 1861). The second argument is constitutionally baseless, since nothing in the constitution guaranteed Southerners the right to import slaves into the territories. Moreover, the South itself had recognized the right of the federal government to restrict slavery in the territories when it acquiesced to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

First, Fed 39 doesn't address the issue of whether or not the Union is indivisible. It doesn't address how they union could be dismembered, nor does it even contemplate that it might be dismembered in the future.

Second, note that the author says that in the operation of its powers the new government would be a "national" government (i.e., centralized), while the extent of those powers would be both "national" and "federal." That means, at least as I read it, that the whole enterprise rests on the ability of the federal and state governments to respect the each other's spheres of authority. Secession is the antithesis of that kind of mutual respect.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli