- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Which state didn't leave because of slavery?
Which state didn't leave because of slavery?
From the Texas Ordnance of Secessionin some of the states, they declaration they are leaving because the u.s.government is not upholding the constitution.
they state some northern states have ceased southern property, harassed and endangered southern Citizens while the federal government which is delegated the power to put an end to problems like these is doing nothing...and that the federal government is massing troops to be used against over southern states.
Texas.
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . .]
So if Texas secedes and calls itself the Texasistan neoCaliphate of America, you'd stall call its citizens Americans?
From the Texas Ordnance of Secession
It is the far-right wing conservaTEAs that won't get over the civil war.
In fact just the opposite--they advocate for a second civil war as you know--and brag they have the vast majority of the weapons.
You must have missed all the #1 best-sellers on the topic--as well as right-wing hate radio calling for such every night .
OK, that got coffee all over my keyboard.But I'm from New England.
What a ridiculous poll.
The South had a legal right to secede. The civil war was an illegal act of aggression perpetrated against the Southern states who acted within their constitutional rights by seceding.
So inasmuch as southerners are traitors, northerners are usurpers whose disdain for the constitutional law of the land shattered the previously long-held precedent of states rights of self-determination
Did Confederate Memorial Day close government offices in your state today?
:shock:
Why are you wanting to honor people who killed more than three hundred thousand Americans?
you said it was unconstitutional..however the constitution does not prohibited the states from seceding..
the 10th amendment is very clear, if its not power of the federal government or prohibited to the states by the constitution then it is power of the states respectively and to the people.
Amendment X
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.
and the people of those southern states exercised their right to secede.
i don't need the link, because there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting secession of the states.
Until taken to SCOTUS to rule upon? is that not correct.
I understood the war settled that point. In favor of the Union and no right to secede from the Union.
its funny, since the court says secession is not legal however the founders say it is..may 31st 1787
it was stated it was unconstitutional....i stated there is nothing in the constitution about secession...since something is not mentioned in the constitution, it in no way can be a power of the federal government...the USSC has granted the federal government powers the founders never intented for them to have.
What constitutional right did they have to secede?
Where was that stated?
you have to read the convention notes of may 31st 1787
Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.
If there is ever another succession movement, I don't think we will go to war over it. And I do not see another succession movement coming unless the politicians in DC behave so badly that the constitution becomes meaningless. If not for the 22nd amendment to the US constitution, I think we would be very close to a succession movement right now. I don't think this nation could survive a third or fourth Obama term in office. Obama has clearly shown that he has no regard for the separation of powers. And congress is too sheepishly cowed to reign him in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?