Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then ask yourself a very simple question: what changed between those early days of the USA and the current powers that states have?
Are you taking the position that what you call international law is superior in authority to the US Constitution?
Here is another source. A quote from Samuel White of Delaware from a speech delievered to the Senate on Nov. 2, 1803 concerning the Louisiana Purchase. Anals of America, Encyclopedia Britanica, p.175
" Louisiana must and will become settled if we hold it, and with the very population that would otherwise occuppy part of our present territory. Thus our citizens will be removed to the immense distance of 2,000 or 3,000 miles from the capital of the Union...their affections will become alilenated; they will gradually begin to view us as strangers; they will form other commercial connections; and our interests will become distinct.
"These, with other causes that human wisdom may not now forsee, will in time effect a separation, and I fear our bounds will be fixed nearer to our houses than the waters of the Mississippi. "
So, as you can see, from the very begining the New England States were concerned over losing power and wealth and control over the new government. And it is for these very reasons that I believe the power in the North had made the determination that it simply must conquer the South in order to protect this power and interests. Slavery was an issue that was there and could be used against the South later.
Quantrill
What changed was the the states ****canned the articles and entered into a new compact in which the delegated more powers to the federation.
What’s your point? Sovereign states leave and enter various treaties and compacts all the time. However, they still remain sovereign.
Nope. I’m saying that the states were and are sovereign, and they created the federal government through a voluntary compact. Since the compact places no restrictions on exit and has no specific time limit, international law and historical precedent would indicate that any of the states may exit when they wish.
The supreriority of the anglo-saxon over the negroe was held by both North and South. Including Lincoln.
Quantrill
The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty.
Not a treaty? It’s an agreement between free, sovereign, and independent states. What else could it be?
What changed was the the states ****canned the articles and entered into a new compact in which the delegated more powers to the federation.
What’s your point? Sovereign states leave and enter various treaties and compacts all the time. However, they still remain sovereign.
Nope. I’m saying that the states were and are sovereign, and they created the federal government through a voluntary compact. Since the compact places no restrictions on exit and has no specific time limit, international law and historical precedent would indicate that any of the states may exit when they wish.
The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty.
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.The founding document of a Republic.
I believe they were called delegates. They were sent to the convention by their respective states.That's why we call the people that wrote it "founders" instead of "diplomats."
It was also meant to strengthen the bond of a bunch of states held together in a very loose Confederation.
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.
I believe they were called delegates. They were sent to the convention by their respective states.
Yes, it was meant to strengthen the bonds between the states. However, the states were and continue to remain free, independent, and sovereign republics.
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.
Yes, it was meant to strengthen the bonds between the states. However, the states were and continue to remain free, independent, and sovereign republics.
In the case of Texas v. White (1868), the Supreme Court
of the United States effectively delegitimized secession as a viable
constitutional option when it held that the unilateral secession of a
state was unconstitutional.76 In addition, the War Between the States
came at a terrible cost in lives and property. Had there been an express
constitutional right of secession inserted in the U.S. Constitution,
the War itself might have been averted.77
Although secession as an inherent right of the several States was
effectively delegitimized by the Union victory over the South and by
Texas v. White, peaceful secessions guided by the rule of law were not
completely unknown. Robert A. Young cites three such examples: the
secession of Hungary from Austria in 1867, the secession of Norway
from Sweden in 1905, and the secession of Singapore from Malaysia
in 1965.
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100
Ó2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute
Ludwig von Mises Institute : The Austrian School Is Advancing Liberty
39
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF SECESSION IN
POLITICAL THEORY AND HISTORY
Please tell the reading audience what the difference(s) might be when comparing the peaceful secessions noted and any such attempt in the US
Again, if you go through the easy steps I have outlined for you - and I have provided you with the necessary resources - you will have your own answer to your own question staring you right in the face.
Exactly. Its the Constitution of the USA. No more need to be said.
And in it, the States gave up lots of power that they had under the Articles to belong to a nation that had a future - which it most certainly may not have had under the weak Articles. They had sovereignity and gave some of it up for a higher purpose.
Other than your own personal opinion about this "federation" allegation, what can you cite to show evidence of this claim?
That's a radical interpretation that not many outside of ultra-libertarian thnk tanks would hold.
Yet they gave up everything that would make them sovereign.
To a lesser extent certainly, but that still doesnt negate the fact that the South seceeded and fought a war, by their own admission, to preserve slavery.
The other secessions did not take place in the United States. Therefore, the United States Constitution does not apply.
As a native Texan, and as I stated in an earlier post. It doesn't matter whether or not Texas could secede tomorrow - meaning without out any legal hitches what-so-ever with the Federal Government. It all boils down to what it cost and what resources are needed to run an independent country.
Texas doesn't have the economic or resource strength to become its own country...period. It would never survive being an independent country. Well, maybe it could if we in Texas want to become another Haiti or the like.
Neither of these things say anything about ruining the Southern economy. Both are about Westward expansion.
I don't know how a quote from one guy from Delaware says anything about New England's power grab. Delaware isn't a New England state, and if anything in 1803, they would have been more on the side of admitting more slave states, as Delaware was a slave state. Even though it says "Louisiana," the Louisiana Territory as added was much bigger than what became the state of Louisiana. He could have been as concerned about what is Iowa now.
At any rate, making the leap from this to "See, they were out to destroy the South" is a HUGE stretch. Both of these quotes are more about East vs. West than they are North vs. South.
I'm from Texas as well, and agree. Any attempted secession, even if successful, would just lead to it becoming like Somalia or Lebanon, a fragmented failed nation that would be a magnet for terrorist bases. Instead of jihadists, these terrorists would be militias and white supremacists.
What most people don't seem to realize is that Texas secessionists are virtually all white hardline conservatives, to the right of someone like Santorum. Those huge parts of Texas that are Latino would fight secession tooth and nail.
Any secession would just lead to a shattered state looking like this, the third map.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/download/158998/1/3212626/the-end-of-texas.pdf
Sure, many held the view that whites were superior. Not exactly uncommon for the time, but it was also fairly common in the North to believe that while blacks were "inferior," owning people as property was wrong.
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?