Southern Secession

Was Harpers Ferry a coup?

 

If you can't unilaterally secede, you would have to leave with the agreement of Congress or the Supreme Court. On what basis would the Court let you go? They would have to set the terms of your exit. It's way beyond the capacity of the Court to negotiate.

If Congress must agree, they must do so by passing legislation--your way out.

States, then, can leave with a constitutional act of the federal government. There is no process established in the Constitution and no implied right to secede without Congressional approval.

Do states have a right to separate? Every state? If the country is divisible, how about states? What if California, Oregon and Washington want to leave and we want access to the Pacific Ocean? How about us taking part of the coast north of the Mexican border or south of the Canadian border?

Are states that were never sovereign, formed from U.S. territory, entitled to secede? What if we don't want you to secede?

You're speculating on SCOTUS ruling a state had a right to secede. I see no evidence the Court would even consider wading into matters so complex.

Huh? SCOTUS wants nothing to do with secession.

He's talking about what was intended by the Founders when they created the United States. There's nothing unusual about that.

You're confusing Lincoln's political statements and actions with how SCOTUS would necessarily view the Constitution.

As I've said, I believe the Constitution permits a state, states, parts of a state or states to leave the union with an act of Congress.

Take it easy. I don't care about Lincoln's stated views.

Trump is scum. I don't think he cares about anyone other than himself. He certainly doesn't care about our country, Constitution or us.

What does this have to do with SCOTUS finding a right to secede in the Constitution?

Who said believing there was no unilateral secession was a change in our identity, permanent or otherwise? I don't think many outside the South considered secession.

You continue assuming states have sovereignty when they clearly do not. Most were created by acts of Congress from U.S. territory.

 

"Equal protection" is why women have the right to an abortion.

 

Hi, DEFinning.

Oh my goodness! I didn't even read your post!!!

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

Nope.

 

This is too long for a response.

There certainly have been USSC rulings that I personally believe were contrary to the constitution as well as contrary to the charter of the USSC - such as being based on elements that had no business being considered central.

For example, I don't agree with the Dred Scott decision.

I can't reasonably comment on your proposed hypothetical SC decisions.

 

AND? Slavery was STILL LEGAL in the United States from day one to even AFTER the Civil War. The Southern states did not start a war over it they suseeded in part because of it. And not impossible to honor those who died giving their lives protecting their homes, their families, their farms, their businesses, factories, their ports, their crops, their livestock, their schools, their public buildings and everything they had to an invading army hellbent on it's total destruction. All the Confederate States wanted was to live in peace with the United States still as a trading partner and even ally.

It was a LEGAL PRACTICE in the United States all throughout the war and even AFTER the war.

AFTER the war.

Are you equating a political group then with one now? What utter folly. Can you show me the liberals back then who wanted government schools to be having drag shows and promoting homosexuality and surgical mutilation of our children and a socialist government and unrestricted abortion? And it was conservatives who ended slavery as a constitutional issue and civil discriminations as a constitutional issue and only "celebrate" the Confederacy as I describe above not the slavery that existed in the United States AND the Confederacy..

 

Are you referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? If so, may you please refer to the Supreme Court case that has not been overturned in which the courts grant a constitutional right to abortion on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause? If you are not referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, may you please elaborate on the Supreme Court granting women the constitutional right to an abortion?

 

Huh? I didn't agree with Roe v. Wade or Dobbs v. Jackson. I think women have always had a right to abortion, but especially after the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees and women are as a result second class citizens.

I keep trying to acquaint anti-abortion types with the idea that women in general will not accept government telling them they must give birth when they don't want to continue their pregnancy. Apparently, the anti-abortion types often don't care how much damage they do to American comity. They're on a mission from God to save every fetus they can.

I have similar comments ready for "gun-grabbers" who don't factor in that people will not give up their guns and that people can now make firearms with 3-D printers.

 

SCOTUS decides what is and isn't constitutional. They have said states have no unilateral right to secede.

There is a way out--federal legislation.

 

Then why point to a Supreme Court decision as if that is the final word on whether states have the right to secede or not? You pointed to one Supreme Court decision and essentially said, "Here, look here! This Supreme Court decision said states DON'T have a right to secede. Take that! Game, set, match." But when it comes to abortion, well, now, Supreme Court decisions really don't matter much; for, according to you, "women have always had a right to abortion." Hence, you don't really believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on whether something is a right or not, unless you happen to agree with what the Supreme Court decided in a particular case, which waters down your premise for your conclusion as to why states cannot secede.

Game, set, match.

 

Oh, so I'm providing too much evidence, for you to be able to draw any conclusion?

LOL.

 

I offered my opinion on the matter. I've made no claim SCOTUS agrees; they obviously do not.

We've stacked the court with rightwingers on a mission. I'd like a little protection from organized religion and I don't think I'm going to get it. Now, the idea is to impose religious claptrap on women of childbearing age.

I don't see what extreme rightwingers are doing as legitimate. The Supreme Court has brought law itself into disrepute.

 

They have ruled you have no right to unilaterally secede.

If the United States is divisible, are states like California, Oregon and Washington divisible as well? The eastern areas of those states might wish to stay in the United States.

You're free to try, of course. The United States will refuse negotiate and it will be suggested you take it up with the Supreme Court. I bet you'll find SCOTUS telling you that the United States will have to pass legislation on the secession plan.

They have the will, means and intention of helping women get full control of their bodies. It won't matter if SCOTUS lets anti-abortion legislation stand.

Western states like California, Oregon and Washington seceding would end U.S. access to the Pacific Ocean except for Alaska and Hawaii. They were never sovereign, formed from U.S. territory. Who but the federal government could negotiate the exit? Can you imagine a SCOTUS decision on protecting American interests?

Getting the U.S. to agree to an exit is a long shot. SCOTUS won't make us.

 

I don't think you are actually addressing my assertion, so I'll try to rephrase it.

I am saying that if one reads the constitution, one will find no langage in it saying that a state cannot leave.

That is the sum total of my assertion, and nobody yet has event attempted to refute it.

 

They interpreted the Constitution as saying you can't get out on your own. That means your way out is an act of Congress.

 

I don't think you are actually addressing my assertion, so I'll try to rephrase it.

I am saying that if one reads the constitution, one will find no langage in it saying that a state cannot leave.

That is the sum total of my assertion, and nobody yet has event attempted to refute it.

 

And you commented that you had not found any argument ever put forth by me, to be "persuasive;" yet you think that your paragraph, above, lays out a logical argument-- LOL!

If states have the right to secede, it does not mean that no other attendant issues need be resolved: ownership of the thread's aforementioned forts and armories, as an example, since you seem so oblivious to any potential issues connected with a change in the status of an area's nationality. How will citizen border crossings, be handled/treated? What about Union rail lines, running through territory, no longer within Union borders? Will a slim tract of that land, then, be sort of grandfathered in, by giving the Union a lease option, on that land? Et cetera. And just because negotiating these things, is not w/in the Court's purview, does not mean that they could not require that the state come to an acceptable agreement on these issues, before it could secede. Your argument here, attests to the shallowness of your mind's analysis, which I find typical of all of your arguments.

 

In short, when you agree with a Supreme Court decision, it is legitimate, and it is the final word. But when you do not agree with a Supreme Court decision, it is illegitimate and, at best, tentative. Would you say that is a fair assessment, when all is said and done?

 

No.

The first comment is why I don't think SCOTUS will gives states the right to unilaterally secede. My second comment is why SCOTUS allowing legislatures, including Congress, to pass laws against abortion won't make any difference because women will defy them

 

SCOTUS already said you have no right to unilaterally secede. I think they're unlikely to change their minds for the reasons I said. I pointed out eastern areas of California, Oregon and Washington may wish to remain in the United States. We may want a West Coast port. If we can divide the United States, we can divide seceding areas of the country. SCOTUS isn't equipped to handle complex matters like secession.

"Forts and armories?" There's a lot more than that to settle.

You're a legend in your own mind.

 

Do you not understand the meaning of the words, "for example?" In fact, I had given more examples than that, which you did not quote. But then, of course, your argument wouldn't wash-- so now we see what you consider to be your own, brilliant mind, at work. It finds a cheap trick, to misrepresent things... So impressive.

In point of fact, I had only needed to give you any examples, because you, apparently, could not recognize that "unilateral secession," does not represent the only way this could be handled. I have made the point, throughout the thread, that there would obviously be issues to first be resolved. Now, from your comment above, I see that, 40 pages in, you're finally hopping aboard my common sense claim. Well, better late, than never.

Here is you, demonstrating your inability to differentiate unilateral secession, from negotiated secession (which I did quote from you, for my reply):

LangleyMan said: ↑
If you can't unilaterally secede, you would have to leave with the agreement of Congress or the Supreme Court...
<End Quote>

I had already stated many, many times, that this case should have gone to the Supreme Court. I think you must be the only person who's read my posts, who didn't pick up on that. But then you take this idea &, once more, fail to see any but one option, of the SCOTUS setting the exact terms-- which you then claim is beyond their ability, as a completely faulty justification for your argument. Again, this is not the least bit impressive show, of your argumentative brilliance. The rest of your quote:

On what basis would the Court let you go? They would have to set the terms of your exit. It's way beyond the capacity of the Court to negotiate.


The "basis" would be that the Constitution does not forbid it, so it is the right of the people in the hypothetical state, to do it.

Your wording of "set the terms," is unclear. If you mean set conditions, such as that certain issues are first resolved between the state & federal government, then you are correct in that statement, and wrong in your following claim, that the Court could not do this.

If, instead, you had meant that the Court would have to decide all these details, themselves, then that statement, is the fallacious one. They would say that, before the state could secede, an agreement would first need be reached, concerning issues X, Y, and Z. Then the state & fed would negotiate. If no agreement could be reached, then yes, the Supreme Court could rule, on how a situation should be handled, based on both the state & federal government's positions. This type of settling of disputes, is specifically delegated to the High Court, as the one having original jurisdiction, in the Constitution's Article 3. I have already posted that, in this thread; but if you have difficulty using the internet, I could post it again, just for you.

So, it is you who showed no grasp of the need for negotiations, such that you couldn't recognize that it is only the unilateral aspect of secession, which is patently unworkable. Then, you answer my giving you some of these issues which would necessarily first need be sorted out, by only quoting a couple of them, and acting like you are aware of many more; though you don't name them, and everything you'd written prior to this, suggested that you were aware of no issues which dictated that any secession would need be negotiated. Here is the part of my quoted examples, I 'd given for your benefit, which you cut out of my quote:

Reprinted, so that they will appear when this post is quoted, provided that they are not cut out, by the quoter:

(DEFinning said):
How will citizen border crossings, be handled/treated? What about Union rail lines, running through territory, no longer within Union borders? Will a slim tract of that land, then, be sort of grandfathered in, by giving the Union a lease option, on that land? Et cetera.
<End Quote>


So the idea of unilateral secession was a meaningless oxymoron. Of course, all unilateral secessions are illegal. But this does not mean that secession, writ large, is illegal. That simple distinction, has stumped you, this entire thread.

And the best you have done to contest my argument, has been to take partial quotes, and then argue against them, out of the context of what we had each been maintaining, in our debate. Oh, bravo. No wonder you feel your opinion on other's debate skills, would be so sought after, that you'd make a point of telling me, that you'd never seen me make a persuasive argument. Well, if your own argument is an example of that, it is true, that I try to not misrepresent others' arguments. Then again, I usually don't need to do that, to win my point.

 

As I pointed out earlier, the English had those ideas long before we did. What separated us from England was the successful incorporation of those ideas into our government and its structure.

My last paragraph is a historical fact. The English/British Colonies in North America were English/British colonies, not independent states, and the English/British colonists were subject to English/British law. The sticking point point between the Colonists and the British government was the Declaratory Act of 1766, where the Parliament in London declared that it "had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America ... in all cases whatsoever":

Declaratory Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_Act

King George III viewed the Founders the same way Abraham Lincoln viewed secessionist Southerners - as rebels.

Nonense indeed, which is why I never gave England credit for not doing something it tried to do at Lexington in 1775 - arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock and haul them back to England to face trial and hanging for treason.

 

Thanks for your agreement.

Exactly! England declared that the colonies had total obligation to England and had NO representation in the laws England declared.

Taxation without representation. Laws on trade. Etc.

As our declaration of independence points out, this is not a tolerable state for humans.

I don't see your point here.

In ALL colonies that have become free of colonial status (and there are many), the government that possessed those colonies saw those who objected as rebels. Remember the point that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" - until those colonies rebelled.

In the case of our civil war secessionists, those states were not possessed by the US. They had full membership. The president prior to Lincoln was a southerner who favored slavery. Lincoln's primary objective was the unification of America - NOT anti-slavery. He was ready for concessions on slavery of various types.

As for representation, slaves were counted for purposes of apportioning House seats - thus tilting our government toward slavery. In fact, part of the issue with the Electoral College was to allow more influence by slave states, which could count their slaves (without giving them representation, obviously), thus giving slave states greater House representation. With the Electoral College, this gave them more influence on the presidency.

Slave states were not limited in representation. In fact, they were OVER represented.

The secessionists had NO higher cause such as is represented in our declaration of independence. All they could say (and did say) is that they wanted to own, breed, sell, and work black people as if they are cattle.

 

Using "forts and armories" is an odd reference suggesting your thinking is out-of-date.

Unilateral secession is almost certainly unacceptable to the United States for the reason I suggested. It might not be the best solution for seceding areas of the country given that some parts of a state may be opposed to seceding.

Resolved before what? What happens if negotiations are unsuccessful?

And I keep telling you the court is not going to get involved in wading through something as complex as secession. I don't know why you don't get it.

I don't think the Court will see it your way. Your rationale would allow me to broadcast on frequencies used by emergency services because the Constitution reserves the right to the people.

How will the Court escape imposing a detailed solution? Why would states created from U.S. territory, never sovereign, be allowed to take U.S. property with them as their right?

I'm aware SCOTUS handles disputes between states, and states and the federal government.

I've worked computers since the 1960s, and taught computer science and computer applications to high school students and adults. How about you?

It the difficulty of negotiations and the impossible position of the Court that will find them simply affirming states must have Congressional approval.

Correct. I didn't bother identifying them.

This makes no sense.

This make no sense, either.

You think SCOTUS is going to find you have a way out a state. I think you're dreaming.