PDA

View Full Version : Salon.com: "How the South rationalizes Secession




TNforPaul45
12-19-2010, 09:45 PM
Incredibly, inaccurate tripe posted over at Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/19/lafantasie_south_secession/index.html

And I quote:


If by defeating the Confederacy during the Civil War, the Union did not prove conclusively that secession could not be legally sustained, the point was made emphatically clear in the 1869 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White. In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (a Republican appointed by Lincoln), the court ruled that under the Articles of Confederation, adopted by the states during the American Revolution, "the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ PLEASE someone tell me where in the US civil Code, or in ANY law code in human history where it says "Anything decided at the end of a gun makes it legal." So every robber, then, commits a legal act, when he points a gun at someone and says "give me your money." Oh, I guess this makes forced taxation legal too, since they still have guns pointed at us. And don't forget, the justice was appointed by Lincoln, and since no state government in the south was going to be allowed to have a Confederate supporter sitting in it, then the Justices would not be exempt from this either. It's a wonder that they voted the way they did.

So the Articles of Confederation says that the Union is "Perpetual" does it?

And I quote:

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Preamble


Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. Back to the tripe Salon.com article:



And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"I'm sure it's very difficult to express the idea of a permanent, indissouluble Union, because it DOES NOT EXIST IN LOGIC

Back to the stupid article:



In any event, Southern secessionists believed that it did, so they came to see themselves as conservatives, not revolutionaries. This position entrapped them in the contradiction of wanting to overthrow the government of the United States while also remaining under the protection of the Constitution. As a result, Southern justifications of the constitutionality of secession and their own conservatism became almost surreal.Oh let me answer this with the Declaration of Independence:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

One more fun little quote:



Confederates then and now deny that they are traitors for championing nullification and secession. But that is precisely what they are. How can anyone possibly be a patriot by calling for the destruction of the country one professes to love and honor?Lets see, they wanted to break away and have the North leave them alone. Yeah, big threat to the existence of the United States. Just like when the Colonies broke from Great Brittan, GB instantly erupted into explosive flames and the entire British Isles immediately sunk into the ocean. Yep. It happened. Just ask Salon.com.

You can read the rest for yourselves...ugh.

nate895
12-19-2010, 09:53 PM
I suppose these people also oppose divorce laws as well, right? I mean, the vows clearly state "until death do us part."

These people have no idea what perpetual means legally. It means "so long as the document is in effect," basically. As long as no one actively attempts to change or opt out of the charter/contract/covenant, it continues to be in full effect, which is opposed to documents with "sunset" provisions that stop being in effect at some particular date or when some particular action is performed. The AoC and Constitution are intended to be in effect until the parties (i.e., the states) decide to opt out, unless there is a specific condition that they cannot opt out, and then there still has to be a valid reason why they should not be allowed to opt out.

TNforPaul45
12-19-2010, 10:22 PM
I suppose these people also oppose divorce laws as well, right? I mean, the vows clearly state "until death do us part."

These people have no idea what perpetual means legally. It means "so long as the document is in effect," basically. As long as no one actively attempts to change or opt out of the charter/contract/covenant, it continues to be in full effect, which is opposed to documents with "sunset" provisions that stop being in effect at some particular date or when some particular action is performed. The AoC and Constitution are intended to be in effect until the parties (i.e., the states) decide to opt out, unless there is a specific condition that they cannot opt out, and then there still has to be a valid reason why they should not be allowed to opt out.

Ditto.

nobody's_hero
12-19-2010, 10:27 PM
If we can't secede, perhaps we could misbehave so badly we get kicked out. That'd be a real shame, huh?

bwlibertyman
12-19-2010, 10:48 PM
I actually had this conversation with a history professor at my university. I asked him if the states had a right to secede and he followed it by saying, "didn't the civil war end that discussion?" I think it's a very common assumption. I don't know what you guys do and I don't mind talking about things to people on here who are for the most part like minded but we really need to open our base. Talk to anyone and everyone you know. I try not to bring things up because I have the reputation of being politically involved. I let people bring things up, then I point out fallacies or things like that. To the point that the articles of confederation said that we lived in a perpetual union, that is true. As history has shown, we disbanded the articles and adopted the constitution. The articles of confederation are null in void. The constitution does not mention a perpetual union so we therefore are not part of one. If we want to look at things realistically, we don't even follow the constitution strictly so why should it matter if it says perpetual or not. The people of power will do what they want.

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-19-2010, 11:12 PM
Freedom is the ability to defend against any aggression.