Scourge of War Boards

Some people are saying it was wrong....
But, it was definitely in the declaration of independence, and in the states contracts. What does everyone think?

To understand secession, one must begin by reading Thomas Hobbs, followed by John Locke, to recognize the validity of Social Contract and its effect on formation of government. The writings of John Locke, particularly "Two Treatises", explain the concept of government and the right of the people to revolt and change the government. In fact, it is frequently referred to as the "Bible of the American Revolution."

There have been dozens of books written on secession and there are websites explaining both viewpoints as to the legality of secession. Has it be decided in the US? Only by force of arms...not by constitutional law. So, like many issues practiced by government, it has not been addressed by the Supreme Court in a law case. (For example, does the EPA have the legal right to set standards for cities, states and individuals on carbon emissions? Has not been determined in the Supreme Court...but it will be!)

J

States Rights you mean?
Well, the government was more of a club back then, I think, or like the UN. The states were very much individual. No one ever said the United States IS, but the United States ARE. What I mean by the government about being like the UN is that the UN handles big affairs, while the countries manage the affairs that they were concerned with, such as crime rate, immigration, etc.

The states, while being smaller, were the same thing. UN was the Union. The Union tried to govern the states too much, in the question of slavery, and other rights to the states, (I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SLAVERY WAS THE ONLY STATES RIGHT BEING VIOLATED! Most Southerners couldn't afford a slave!)

The same thing would probably happen now, if the UN tried to tell the countries that are members of the UN to, say, stop using cars, (not saying that that is gonna happen or that that is a great example!), or to stop expanding cities that already have an average diameter of 3 miles. People would HATE that!

And the Southerners hated it too.

As everyone knows, when the new nation's first government was formed under the Articles of Confederation, it was extremely weak (for a myriad of reasons). It was a reaction to the complete authority of the Crown where even the simplest laws passed by a colonial government could be over-ridden by either the British Parliament or the King. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most powerful, British government was a 10 (not the movie 10 ) and the AofC was a one. Each of the colonies was actually a State, Nation, Nation-State (take your pick) where the individual sovernity rested with the new State government. These were independent nations and at the AofC Convention, they granted certain rights to the new national government while retaining the majority of rights for themselves, such as taxation, a court system, etc. They only "granted" certain rights to the new government with the vast majority emphasizing international committments.

After less then 10 years, it was determined that the AofC was too weak and recognized it needed "repair." After the Mt. Vernon conference, followed by the Baltimore conference, a letter was prepared by Alexander Hamilton and forwarded to each State's legislative body. In this letter, Hamilton solicited their input and requested representatives attend a meeting to held in Philadelphia the following May to address the shortcomings and general ineffectiveness of the AofC. Twelve of the States attended with Rhode Island sending no representative.

The original intent was to "bolster" the power of the AofC government, but it was quickly determined that was not possible. To make a long story short, they agreed to write a "new document" that would address the issues of the day which resulted in the new Constitution. The new Constitution was designed to LIMIT the powers of the national government and LISTED (Delegated) the powers the national government could assume. (Unlike Barry Obama, they were afraid of a "too powerful" government and believed the limited powers to be a "positive" rather than a "negative" as described by the former Constitutional professor. :ohmy: )

Those opposed to the new Constitution, known as the Anti-Federalist, believed too many powers were granted under the new document and argued against its ratification. Ultimately, the Constitution's "Father", James Madison, assured the public that the arguments against the new Constitution would be addressed during the first Congress with the introduction of what we call the "Bill of Rights." Subsequently, based in large part upon Madison's honor and reputation, the Constitution was ratified and Madison kept his word - he introduced the "Bill of Rights" which originally contained 12 Amendments, with 10 passing.

The most important was the 10th Amendment which, to paraphrase, stated: "All powers not granted to the national government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the States." Hence, State's Rights!

Nowhere in the Constitution is slavery addressed as a separate issue. In fact, the only direct reference to slavery is the inclusion of a 20 year limitation on continued importations of African slaves. Even the southern States agreed to this clause for one simple reason: America was the only nation in history where the slave population "grew" and that was because of natural reproduction! No more importations would be required to maintain the work-force.

Also, there is no mention regarding the permanance, or dissoluton, of the new Republic. Indeed, even the Father of the Country, George Washington, thought the new Constitution would only last 20 years! Ben Franklin remarked to a female observor that the new document granted a Repulic..."Keep it if you can!" During the preceding centuries, governments seemed to change as frequently as the weather....why should the new Repulic be any different?

For those interested in Lincoln's view on secession, I refer you to http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487 from the Cato Institute. Remember, during the war he stated that the goverment was formed to last into "perpetuity." Was this his true opinion, or one of wartime convenience? You decide! :dry:

Sorry for the long oration. Hope it refreshed your thought process on the topic at hand.

J

General Hampton, Good to see you on this forum, I like your post and I agree with your interpretation of the rights of Secession.
I just hope it doesnt start a row lol!

Braxton Bragg

Heck, if Shirkon or Phantom Captain, or Armchair General find this, I am dead meat!

Hey Hampton Legion, your dead meat any way. This great experiment "The United States of America" will always be here, as long as people read and understand the history of this planet. The rights of secession are only good if you win, and then in the long run you loose. This country was founded on sacrifice and was sustained on sacrifice through out it's history. What is the point of prenuptials? If it don't work we can get out with out loosing stuff. You loose any way. To me rights of secession are part and parcel the same as prenupts. Your start out loosers. I'll start out on this journey but when it gets to tough for me I can quit right? You bet Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee ,Beauregard, Forrest, Johnston, etc etc.

I don't understand

Think possitve my man not negative. Rights of secesstion? How about compomise? Rule of Law? The right thing to do? How can you be right if you think an entire race of people are sub human? Slave holders made laws governing their "Property". They made rules in the Legeslator to have no speaking bad thoughts or condemnation of slavery by them "hated Yankee abolitionists". They even made changes in the tenants of their regligeous institutions to asuage beliefs. Slavery may have been legal but not right or ever right. You can not build a nation with a foundation of enslaving an entire race of people and not even giving that race a place in humanity. So yeah, you have rights to leave but you are still wrong.

Hampton Legion HQ wrote:

I don't understand

"A House divided against itself cannot stand." I still have yet to see any other legitimate reasons that the South had as breaches of their states' rights besides slavery. Even then though, you have to look in the mirror and say, "The South was getting mad because Northern abolitionists were trying to tell them they shouldn't have other human beings in bondage over such a mundane and helpless matter as the color of their skin. People in your country of England realized that long before the US, Hampton, ending with Wilberforce's drive to end slavery in England.

And I don't think that is too much of a thrashing, no dead meat here.