Obama Weak,Democrats are in trouble.

[BigRob]

There should be a means to a peaceful departure. Our founding docs say that the people have the right to dissolve the bonds of government, we should not have to resort to war. I would argue that Lincoln should not have stopped them but continued to try to keep the union together without coercion.

Our Founding Fathers were not idiots -- in documents they spelled out the reasons for breaking with England, but I seriously doubt any of them thought the outcome would be anything other than war.

The inevitable result of secession is war. Those who leave think they are in the right, and the entity that they left from thinks they are in rebellion. Ultimately whichever side wins gets to write the history...and in this case, the North won.

 

[BigRob]

from DofI

pretty clearly describes the point the southern states found themselves in.

The Declaration of Independence has no bearing in any legal sense in regards to secession. That said, England viewed it as a rebellion -- and rightfully so. Had England won the war the "Founders" would have been rounded up and executed as traitors. Since we won the war however...we get to write the history of it.

 

[BigRob]

So if the Southern States would want to seced now, what do you think would happen?

The Southern States don't want to secede....

 

[TheJPRD]

Our Founding Fathers were not idiots -- in documents they spelled out the reasons for breaking with England, but I seriously doubt any of them thought the outcome would be anything other than war.

The inevitable result of secession is war. Those who leave think they are in the right, and the entity that they left from thinks they are in rebellion. Ultimately whichever side wins gets to write the history...and in this case, the North won.

The American Revolution and the US Civil War can be compared in one respect; i.e., that the winners in wars do write the history. However, BR, the use of the term "rebellion" does not apply to the US Civil War. The American colonies were part of the British Empire, and as such had no legal basis upon which to leave the Empire. The US States at the time of the Civil War were part of a Republic. Our Republic was based upon the principle that each State was a voluntary member of the Republic, not the property of an indivisable Federal government. As such, the southern States had every legal right to secede.

I've long ceased to re-fight the Civil War. Doing so serves no worthwhile purpose except for reenactors. Both sides can argue that their motives were pure to some extent. However, the constant drone of those who condemn the racist, southern "rebels" irritates me. "Rebel" is an inappropriate term to apply to those southern States. Those States had done nothing illegal nor un-Constitutional by seceding. One cannot be a rebel if one is following the rules. The southern States did follow the rules.

I have great-grandfathers who fought on both sides in the Civil War. I'm proud of each of them, regardless of which side they took in that conflict. My Union great-grandfather was an abolotionist, and I'm proud of that fact. My Confederate great-grandfather was a Virginian, steeped in the patriotism that was defined by fellow-Virginians like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. I am proud of my Confederate ancestor too, for I know his motives were pure. Unlike my Union ancestor, however, the patriotism and service of my Confederate is ridiculed by many Americans today. His battle flag is defined by many as a sign of "racism", rather than a sign of his love of Virginia and our Constitution.

The English and Americans get along very well today, and have for many years. Those who fought on both sides of the American Revolution are generally respected for their service and sacrifice by both sides. That is not true of our Confederate ancestors. After 150 years, Confederate patriots are still being condemned by those who only see "slavery" as the cause of the Civil War. It's time we Americans recognize that Confederate soldiers were as patriotic and as worthy of respect as Union soldiers. It's time we stop trying to abolish every sign of Confederate history and patriotism. It's time we recognize that both Union and Confederate soldiers are worthy of our respect and our rememberance.

 

[BigRob]

No...leaving the Union is not a rebellion it is a right of the sovereign states. The Constitution allowed for secession, of course, until the tyrant Lincoln ended that right by killing 800k Americans and destroying a good portion of the nation. Was it worth it?

Your statement is simply not accurate. I know you like to just classify anyone with a different viewpoint as a "low information liberal", but the issue of secession was debated among our Founders as well, with the formation of the Constitution and the abandoning of the Articles of Confederation. As per most issues, the Founder's did not agree on the issue -- and we are left with a federalist vs. anti federalist debate...pitting people like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton against people like Patrick Henry. (I guess James Madison is a "low information liberal")

The federalists spoke fairly openly about no such right of secession would exist under this new constitution -- with Hamilton openly stating that the right to withdraw was inconsistent with the Constitution. The federalists won the debate, the debate was further settled during the Civil War, even the Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional at this point. There is no legal basis for it....the people don't want...and the idea that an act of rebellion will be ignored is the pinnacle of lunacy.

 

[BigRob]

The American Revolution and the US Civil War can be compared in one respect; i.e., that the winners in wars do write the history. However, BR, the use of the term "rebellion" does not apply to the US Civil War. The American colonies were part of the British Empire, and as such had no legal basis upon which to leave the Empire. The US States at the time of the Civil War were part of a Republic. Our Republic was based upon the principle that each State was a voluntary member of the Republic, not the property of an indivisable Federal government. As such, the southern States had every legal right to secede.

I've long ceased to re-fight the Civil War. Doing so serves no worthwhile purpose except for reenactors. Both sides can argue that their motives were pure to some extent. However, the constant drone of those who condemn the racist, southern "rebels" irritates me. "Rebel" is an inappropriate term to apply to those southern States. Those States had done nothing illegal nor un-Constitutional by seceding. One cannot be a rebel if one is following the rules. The southern States did follow the rules.

I have great-grandfathers who fought on both sides in the Civil War. I'm proud of each of them, regardless of which side they took in that conflict. My Union great-grandfather was an abolotionist, and I'm proud of that fact. My Confederate great-grandfather was a Virginian, steeped in the patriotism that was defined by fellow-Virginians like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. I am proud of my Confederate ancestor too, for I know his motives were pure. Unlike my Union ancestor, however, the patriotism and service of my Confederate is ridiculed by many Americans today. His battle flag is defined by many as a sign of "racism", rather than a sign of his love of Virginia and our Constitution.

The English and Americans get along very well today, and have for many years. Those who fought on both sides of the American Revolution are generally respected for their service and sacrifice by both sides. That is not true of our Confederate ancestors. After 150 years, Confederate patriots are still being condemned by those who only see "slavery" as the cause of the Civil War. It's time we Americans recognize that Confederate soldiers were as patriotic and as worthy of respect as Union soldiers. It's time we stop trying to abolish every sign of Confederate history and patriotism. It's time we recognize that both Union and Confederate soldiers are worthy of our respect and our rememberance.

I have no issue with people taking pride in their heritage....but your statement about how a State is viewed does not give the entire debate. The Federalists who really won the debate during the writing of the new Constitution would not agree with your statement about secession -- and in fact stated the exact opposite.

 

[steveox]

True, Our founding fathers were not idiots. But the American voters are.

 

[dogtowner]

generally speaking the winnets of.a debate on this point or that wete able to establish wording showing as.much or when it was more of a drsw then the wording reflected that. as you know it is not addressed specifically which would seem to indicate a draw. which leaves us the bill of rights where the subject.of dtates rights is addressed. this point is mainly a states rights matter.

it would seem that at best its ambiguois. clesrly not a.win.for.what you suggest.

as far as scotus goes they could not judge any other way for liability alone.

 

[Gipper]

Your statement is simply not accurate. I know you like to just classify anyone with a different viewpoint as a "low information liberal", but the issue of secession was debated among our Founders as well, with the formation of the Constitution and the abandoning of the Articles of Confederation. As per most issues, the Founder's did not agree on the issue -- and we are left with a federalist vs. anti federalist debate...pitting people like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton against people like Patrick Henry. (I guess James Madison is a "low information liberal")

The federalists spoke fairly openly about no such right of secession would exist under this new constitution -- with Hamilton openly stating that the right to withdraw was inconsistent with the Constitution. The federalists won the debate, the debate was further settled during the Civil War, even the Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional at this point. There is no legal basis for it....the people don't want...and the idea that an act of rebellion will be ignored is the pinnacle of lunacy.

I did not classify you or anyone else as a low information liberal. I know you are not a liberal. You are a statist NeoCon.

The states were sovereign before and after the enactment of the Constitution. This is not a matter of debate. It is a fact. Sovereign means they control their own destiny. They can do as their citizens wish. If they want to secede from the Union, they can...well until the tyrannical Lincoln ignored the Constitution and expanded the rights of the state.

I consider Lincoln's numerous unconstitutional actions TREASONOUS. He should have been impeached.

But, lets us put that aside. I would like you to make an argument that the Civil War was warranted. Was it worth all the death, destruction, and suffering?

 

[BigRob]

generally speaking the winnets of.a debate on this point or that wete able to establish wording showing as.much or when it was more of a drsw then the wording reflected that. as you know it is not addressed specifically which would seem to indicate a draw. which leaves us the bill of rights where the subject.of dtates rights is addressed. this point is mainly a states rights matter.

it would seem that at best its ambiguois. clesrly not a.win.for.what you suggest.

as far as scotus goes they could not judge any other way for liability alone.

I'd call it a victory when you get removed clauses that some state's put forward expressly allowing for secession.

 

[BigRob]

I did not classify you or anyone else as a low information liberal. I know you are not a liberal. You are a statist NeoCon.

The states were sovereign before and after the enactment of the Constitution. This is not a matter of debate. It is a fact. Sovereign means they control their own destiny. They can do as their citizens wish. If they want to secede from the Union, they can...well until the tyrannical Lincoln ignored the Constitution and expanded the rights of the state.

I consider Lincoln's numerous unconstitutional actions TREASONOUS. He should have been impeached.

But, lets us put that aside. I would like you to make an argument that the Civil War was warranted. Was it worth all the death, destruction, and suffering?

To your question of was the Civil War worth it -- I would ask that to those that started it...the South, when they rebelled. But if the issue at hand is "is the United States worth fighting for", then yes, it was worth it.

 

[Gipper]

To your question of was the Civil War worth it -- I would ask that to those that started it...the South, when they rebelled. But if the issue at hand is "is the United States worth fighting for", then yes, it was worth it.

I do not understand your response. I would guess you mean the war, with all its death and destruction, was worth it because it saved the Union. If so, this does not make sense. It means in affect, to save the Union, we must first kill thousands and destroy vast areas of the it. That is the typical response of a statist. I think it most inappropriate and tyrannical.

And I do not believe Lincoln blameless for the war. He was primarily responsible for starting it and continuing it with deadly force.

 

[dogtowner]

I'd call it a victory when you get removed clauses that some state's put forward expressly allowing for secession.

or maybe its just kicking the can down the road !?!?

first instance of a dc.tradition ?

hahaha

 

[BigRob]

or maybe its just kicking the can down the road !?!?

first instance of a dc.tradition ?

hahaha

Haha -- probably so.

 

[BigRob]

I do not understand your response. I would guess you mean the war, with all its death and destruction, was worth it because it saved the Union.

Yes, preserving the Union is an important thing.

If so, this does not make sense. It means in affect, to save the Union, we must first kill thousands and destroy vast areas of the it. That is the typical response of a statist. I think it most inappropriate and tyrannical.

I think the finger of blame should be pointed at those who started the conflict....which (and we disagree on) I believe was the South, when they openly rebelled.

And I do not believe Lincoln blameless for the war. He was primarily responsible for starting it and continuing it with deadly force.

Why wouldn't he fight the war until the conclusion? Would anyone of us be any better off had we just dissolved the Union?