WTF? Look at this paragraph from my one of my classes' books.

[rational thinker]

From poli sci class, I was astounded by this paragraph:

"The secession had produced very mixed feelings in Lee. Although he was, in his attitude toward slavery, his contempt for abolitionists and Republicans, and his preference for southern Democratic candidate John C. Breckinridge for president in the election of 1860, very much a typical southerner, he also recognized, as did many other reluctant Confederates, that the Constitution held no right of secession for the states."


Is this true?

[Elle]

I think it is in the individual state constituion that if the government does not follow the Constitution they may exercise the right to secede

[RedStripe]

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_Orlonater]

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee%20on%20Slavery.htm

[TastyWheat]

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.
+1776

[youngbuck]

+1776

x2

[Krugerrand]

From poli sci class, I was astounded by this paragraph:

"The secession had produced very mixed feelings in Lee. Although he was, in his attitude toward slavery, his contempt for abolitionists and Republicans, and his preference for southern Democratic candidate John C. Breckinridge for president in the election of 1860, very much a typical southerner, he also recognized, as did many other reluctant Confederates, that the Constitution held no right of secession for the states."


Is this true?

Not sure ... but it is definitely possible that Lee did not believe in succession. The loyalty to State was exceptionally strong back then and could have easily trumped such belief.

[Pericles]

Not true. Lee thought secession was a bad decision, but he did believe that it was perfectly legal.

The best short and readable book on the war is "The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert Selph Henry (try to get the revised 1957 edition). One of the many reasons the war occurred was the differing perceptions of the Northerner and Southerners best expressed by Lewis Cass, Secretary of State under Buchanan - "I speak to Cobb and he tells me he is a Georgian; to Floyd, and he tells me he is a Virginian, to you, and you tell me you are a Carolinian. I am not a Michigander; I am a citizen of the United States."

That, in summary is the reason for the war - Confederates considered themselves to be citizens of a state, that had delegated some responsibilities to a federal government, while the Unionist position was the supremacy of the federal government in creating a single nation of which the states are a political subdivision.

[ChaosControl]

...

[TastyWheat]

The states associate with the Union under the contract of the Constitution. If that contract is breached I think it's perfectly acceptable to end the association.

[BuddyRey]

From poli sci class, I was astounded by this paragraph:

"The secession had produced very mixed feelings in Lee. Although he was, in his attitude toward slavery, his contempt for abolitionists and Republicans, and his preference for southern Democratic candidate John C. Breckinridge for president in the election of 1860, very much a typical southerner, he also recognized, as did many other reluctant Confederates, that the Constitution held no right of secession for the states."


Is this true?

Thomas Woods debunks this myth in his book "The Politically incorrect guide to American History", though right now I find myself drawing a blank when I try to remember the name of the law or resolution. I believe you can find torrents of this book (both in text and audiobook versions) on Demonoid, if you need to "cram" for your next class! ;-)

[emazur]

I read in a book that when the Civil War ended, not one single person was tried for the "crime" of secession.

[nate895]

I read in a book that when the Civil War ended, not one single person was tried for the "crime" of secession.

Even though they pleaded for it. Davis begged to go to trial, but Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that he couldn't be tried for treason because secession was not prohibited.


From poli sci class, I was astounded by this paragraph:

"The secession had produced very mixed feelings in Lee. Although he was, in his attitude toward slavery, his contempt for abolitionists and Republicans, and his preference for southern Democratic candidate John C. Breckinridge for president in the election of 1860, very much a typical southerner, he also recognized, as did many other reluctant Confederates, that the Constitution held no right of secession for the states."


Is this true?

Marriage Contracts don't recognize the right of divorce, therefore there is no right of divorce.

That is the same logic someone using the "Constitution doesn't say you can" garbage is using.

[RSLudlum]

I read in a book that when the Civil War ended, not one single person was tried for the "crime" of secession.

Maybe but look up the Ironclad Oath and you will see why. After the 'civil war', suffrage and jury duty would only be allowed to those that made the Ironclad Oath up to 1870, although it was deemed unconstitutional in 1867.

[BuddyRey]

That is the same logic someone using the "Constitution doesn't say you can" garbage is using.

Ooh! That's a very good point! The Constitution at no point suggests what citizens are allowed to do; it only makes specific what government is allowed (or disallowed) to do. In this respect, it is very much a document fashioned on the principle of "negative liberty" rather than 'positive liberty."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think it is in the individual state constituion that if the government does not follow the Constitution they may exercise the right to secede

Great. That means we can split ourselves up into Anglo, African, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American states before we then proceed to split ourselves up further into primitive tribes. Then brothers can once again prostitute their little sisters while fathers sell their daughters as livestock.

[mczerone]

Great. That means we can split ourselves up into Anglo, African, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American states before we then proceed to split ourselves up further into primitive tribes. Then brothers can once again prostitute their little sisters while fathers sell their daughters as livestock.

What is your point? That States shouldn't be able to peacefully opt out of the Union because it would lead to treating women as property?

Come on, lets stick to real debate, based on facts, reason and logic, and not hyper-emotional ploys that neither address the original hypothesis (that secession should be allowed), nor provides support for the opposing view beyond making a horrible and unsubstantiated guess as to what might happen in such a system.

Further, you imply that we'd all break down on racial lines - when I can't find a single state in this Union that has 100% of any single race (Even Nebraska and Idaho have some Pacific Islanders), so if any state were to secede, they would likely still have a multicultural population.

And finally - where in this breakdown of central power do you assume that seceding states would disavow human rights to allow women to be sold? OTOH, wouldn't there be more variety in methods in dealing with issues like prostitution, so that some areas may legalize the practice, giving illegal operations in neighboring jurisdictions pressure to conform to such an open and honest business practice, with similar compensation, as the legal practice, thus giving more women the rights to their own bodies, not less.

I don't expect a rational response, but I can't let the stupidity of the generalizations in your last post stand unaccosted.

[brandon]

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.

Exactly. The constitution purpose is not to list the rights of the states and the people. The constitution's purpose is to outline the role of the federal government and limit its power and scope.

[Deborah K]

The Constitution doesn't specifically give the right to secede, but it does not prohibit it. I read that the reason the founders decided not to put it in as a right was because it would have been impossible to obtain the ratification of the states.

[specsaregood]

//

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What is your point? That States shouldn't be able to peacefully opt out of the Union because it would lead to treating women as property?

Come on, lets stick to real debate, based on facts, reason and logic, and not hyper-emotional ploys that neither address the original hypothesis (that secession should be allowed), nor provides support for the opposing view beyond making a horrible and unsubstantiated guess as to what might happen in such a system.

Further, you imply that we'd all break down on racial lines - when I can't find a single state in this Union that has 100% of any single race (Even Nebraska and Idaho have some Pacific Islanders), so if any state were to secede, they would likely still have a multicultural population.

And finally - where in this breakdown of central power do you assume that seceding states would disavow human rights to allow women to be sold? OTOH, wouldn't there be more variety in methods in dealing with issues like prostitution, so that some areas may legalize the practice, giving illegal operations in neighboring jurisdictions pressure to conform to such an open and honest business practice, with similar compensation, as the legal practice, thus giving more women the rights to their own bodies, not less.

I don't expect a rational response, but I can't let the stupidity of the generalizations in your last post stand unaccosted.

We already have a poor and divided Latin America. Why have an Anglo one?