Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Secession

JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Secession is a topic I have been looking into recently. I am interested in learning what DDO members think about the topic.

I have been reading about views on the topic through American history, but you people should by no means limit yourself only to secession from an American perspective.

Here are some questions that might help guide you, but do not feel like you should only answer these questions:
- What do you think about legal secession?
- How should legal secession take place?
- What about secession through force?
- On the topic of secession in the U.S.:
--- What are your views on secession and the U.S. Constitution?
--- What do you think about the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White (1869), the case that ruled that secession is illegal in the U.S.?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:34:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM, JBlake wrote:

Good question.

- What do you think about legal secession?

I do not think it was intended by the founders and do not like the idea of it.

- How should legal secession take place?

It should not. In my opinion. We should stay united.

- On the topic of secession in the U.S.:
--- What are your views on secession and the U.S. Constitution?

It was not meant the way some think, by the founders.
They wanted us to be united but separate, Still being united.
As evidence in the preamble of the Articles of Confederation!
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
http://www.usconstitution.net...

I have to get on to poli sci class but this is a good discussion.
I hope it gets large a based with facts.

Daniel
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:38:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:34:14 AM, comoncents wrote:
It was not meant the way some think, by the founders.
They wanted us to be united but separate, Still being united.
As evidence in the preamble of the Articles of Confederation!
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
http://www.usconstitution.net...

Yes, there was a Perpetual Union Clause in he Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation is not the founding document of the U.S. Therefore, the Perpetual Union Clause does not apply, unless you use Chief Justice Chase's opinion in the 1869 case mentioned above.

Anyone else who discusses the topic should not feel constrained by the set of questions and should not answer them in bullet form. They are just a general guide. I am hoping (and expecting from this group in particular) for some well thought out views on the matter.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:48:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM, JBlake wrote:
Secession is a topic I have been looking into recently. I am interested in learning what DDO members think about the topic.

I have been reading about views on the topic through American history, but you people should by no means limit yourself only to secession from an American perspective.

Here are some questions that might help guide you, but do not feel like you should only answer these questions:
- What do you think about legal secession?

AOK. I think if a given state has a majority that doesn't want to be a part of the federal government, they shouldn't be forced to.

- How should legal secession take place?

I think that given states should be able to secede, and that the states should be able to keep people within their state from seceding b/c if they don't like their given state's government the people are have full rights to move to other states in the Union.

This is not guaranteed to be the case if US citezens can't secede from the US. For they don't necessarily have a guaranteed right to go to a foreign land whose government they like.

- What about secession through force?

Force like enforcing the above laws... Ok. Force like just general rebellion. No.

- On the topic of secession in the U.S.:
--- What are your views on secession and the U.S. Constitution?

Allowed in that it's not said that the states don't have that right/that the US can forcibly keep states in the Union.. and the 9th/10th reserves those rights to the states, and people, what's not explicitly granted to the US.

--- What do you think about the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White (1869), the case that ruled that secession is illegal in the U.S.?

I haven't read it... or at least not that i remember.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:54:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think some government is preferable to anarchy, but would like to see people as free as possible.

Having many states with a good amount of their own sovereignty, but still with guaranteed rights through the Fed. is the best way to go.

If a state wants to secede. I'd say they have to let those who wish to leave, leave as they want.

Otherwise the Fed should declare war on them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:58:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If a state wants to secede. I'd say they have to let those who wish to leave, leave as they want.
with their property and whatnot...
Otherwise the Fed should declare war on them.

this should be for at least something like 5 years after secession.

Also... if other states/countries are violating what I consider Human dignity, I'd be in support of my country meddling in their politics to support democracy and human rights as I see fit, and even taking out dictators if it seemed like it would benefit humanity...

So states can't go reinstitute slavery :p; or if they were to I'd be in support of killing those politicians who do so.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:58:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You can read about the case on wikipedia for a full treatment of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A quick summary of Texas v. White (1869) as it relates to secession:

Ch. Jus. Chase ruled that Texas had not seceded from the federal union because such an act is unconstitutional and is an act of rebellion. Any act thereafter passed by the government is considered invalid if it aids the rebellion (though day to day legislation like marriage licenses are considered valid).

He based this opinion on the Perpetual Union Clause in the Articles of Confederation. He stated that this clause extends to the U.S. Constitution by the "More Perfect Union" language in the preamble of the U.S. Const.:

"By these [the Articles], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." 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?" --- Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:02:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mattrodstrom:

What about the property of those choosing to remain loyal to the federal government and do not wish to participate in secession? What happens to it?

What about federal property that exists within the territory of the state that is seceding?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:07:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:58:54 AM, JBlake wrote:
You can read about the case on wikipedia for a full treatment of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A quick summary of Texas v. White (1869) as it relates to secession:

Ch. Jus. Chase ruled that Texas had not seceded from the federal union because such an act is unconstitutional and is an act of rebellion. Any act thereafter passed by the government is considered invalid if it aids the rebellion (though day to day legislation like marriage licenses are considered valid).

He based this opinion on the Perpetual Union Clause in the Articles of Confederation. He stated that this clause extends to the U.S. Constitution by the "More Perfect Union" language in the preamble of the U.S. Const.:

That's really bogus.

Firstly I'm pretty sure the preamble is not something that's supposed to have governing power.

secondly The Articles are no longer a governing document, the powers and whatnot assigned in it are no longer those that count. The ones in the Constitution are.

The constitution specifically spells out that those powers not SPECIFICALLY Given to the FED IN the CONSTITUTIONare RESERVED to the States, or the People.

The Fed doesn't have ANY powers BUT those given IN the constitution.

"By these [the Articles], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." 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?" --- Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:07:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In questions of who has sovereignty over a piece of jurisdiction, there is no principle but two: which side getting your support will result in more freedom for the inhabitants, and if there is a tie (i.e. both governments are consistent libertarians, unlikely), who was there first.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:11:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 12:02:16 PM, JBlake wrote:
Mattrodstrom:

What about the property of those choosing to remain loyal to the federal government and do not wish to participate in secession? What happens to it?

They should be able to sell land, and be able to bring their property elsewhere.

What about federal property that exists within the territory of the state that is seceding?
That's a tough one as the constitution now says its completely Fed. from what I understand.
Hopefully some agreement could be come to.

I'd say pass an amendment giving it back to the state in the event of a secession.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:38:59 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:34:14 AM, comoncents wrote:
It was not meant the way some think, by the founders.
They wanted us to be united but separate, Still being united.
As evidence in the preamble of the Articles of Confederation!
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
http://www.usconstitution.net...

Yes, there was a Perpetual Union Clause in he Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation is not the founding document of the U.S. Therefore, the Perpetual Union Clause does not apply, unless you use Chief Justice Chase's opinion in the 1869 case mentioned above.

Anyone else who discusses the topic should not feel constrained by the set of questions and should not answer them in bullet form. They are just a general guide. I am hoping (and expecting from this group in particular) for some well thought out views on the matter.

True but the articles show the consciousness of our founders.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 4:33:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM, JBlake wrote:
--- What do you think about the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White (1869), the case that ruled that secession is illegal in the U.S.?

It was baseless.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 4:43:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 4:33:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM, JBlake wrote:
--- What do you think about the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White (1869), the case that ruled that secession is illegal in the U.S.?

It was baseless.

Obviously. JBlake, what do you suppose the ruling would have been directly after the North had stopped the South from seceding?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 4:56:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 4:29:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:38:59 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:34:14 AM, comoncents wrote:
It was not meant the way some think, by the founders.
They wanted us to be united but separate, Still being united.
As evidence in the preamble of the Articles of Confederation!
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
http://www.usconstitution.net...

Yes, there was a Perpetual Union Clause in he Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation is not the founding document of the U.S. Therefore, the Perpetual Union Clause does not apply, unless you use Chief Justice Chase's opinion in the 1869 case mentioned above.

Anyone else who discusses the topic should not feel constrained by the set of questions and should not answer them in bullet form. They are just a general guide. I am hoping (and expecting from this group in particular) for some well thought out views on the matter.

True but the articles show the consciousness of our founders.

i was under the impression that articles showed the founders what not to do in trying to craft a workable government :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 4:33:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:14:45 AM, JBlake wrote:
--- What do you think about the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White (1869), the case that ruled that secession is illegal in the U.S.?

It was baseless.

It was not entirely baseless. I wrote above what the argument was. Why don't you try counter the argument? Merely stating that it is baseless serves no purpose.

Nags:
I m not entirely certain that the decision was inevitable. There were plenty of people who opposed the ruling from both sides. A great number of people wanted to punish the south and treat them like conquered territory - which could only happen if they were considered to have left the union.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 5:20:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 11:58:54 AM, JBlake wrote:
"By these [the Articles], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." 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?" --- Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

The Constitution replaced the Articles. Nothing in the Articles still holds. In the tenth amendment to the Constitution, it states:

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 power to secede is left to the States.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 8:01:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 5:20:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:58:54 AM, JBlake wrote:
"By these [the Articles], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." 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?" --- Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

The Constitution replaced the Articles. Nothing in the Articles still holds. In the tenth amendment to the Constitution, it states:


NoNoNo.
The articles of confederation had to have the "Perpetual Union" because it was written as if each state was an individual country. The reason it was in there was b/c secession is not what the founders wanted.

When the constitution came around every state signed on with the idea of being a state, not having the power to run the state like an individual country anymore, so there was no need for a "Perpetual Union" to be stated in the constitution.

Think about this:
They never wanted anyone to seceded or Thomas Jefferson would have tried when the federalist were running the country but it did not even enter his mind.

The tenth was written with being a "Perpetual Union" in mind.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 8:06:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm extreme when it comes to localization so I'm in favor of all the states seceding from each-other.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 11:42:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am not sober enough to deal with comoncents. I will address it tomorrow.

wjmelements.. I expected more from you... Yes, the const. "replaced" the Articles, which is why Ch. Jus. Chase made his argument as he did. So please, if you mean to make a point, please make one. So far, you have failed to make any argumentor point regarding secession - which I expected you to be well versed in.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 2:13:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 8:01:14 PM, comoncents wrote:

The tenth was written with being a "Perpetual Union" in mind.

Then they prolly should have accounted for it in the constitution because the 10th clearly states the Fed is Completely limited to acting Within the Powers explicitly granted in it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 9:37:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Given that I delivered an entire speech on the point of secession...

First things first. We seceded from England in the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers obviously supported secession.
Secondly, a fair number of Founding Fathers openly supported the right to secede, including Thomas Jefferson. The right to secede was, for the most part, taken for granted.
http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Thirdly, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to secede to the states.
Finally, Texas' constitution states that as long as the government remains a republic, the people of Texas may alter their government in any way that they see fit, which includes the fact of loyalty or the lack thereof to the fed.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 9:44:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Jefferson actually believed that the U. S. would form two or three separate unions.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 9:50:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 9:44:31 PM, mongoose wrote:
Jefferson actually believed that the U. S. would form two or three separate unions.

Interesting. Could you post a link?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 9:51:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 9:37:31 PM, mongeese wrote:

Thirdly, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to secede to the states.

JBlake doesn't think that's a valid point.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 9:51:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 9:37:31 PM, mongeese wrote:
Given that I delivered an entire speech on the point of secession...

First things first. We seceded from England in the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers obviously supported secession.

They did not see it that way.
They were so neglected from england that it was assumed that america was on it's own.
England started to tighten up but were accustomed to being on our own we refused. They did not see it as secession. You would be wrong in your assumption.

Secondly, a fair number of Founding Fathers openly supported the right to secede, including Thomas Jefferson. The right to secede was, for the most part, taken for granted.
http://www.lewrockwell.com...

No, that is not true or he would have tried it for the state of virginia when he thought the country was going in the wrong direction.
That was his opinion and the quote was taken out of context in a storm of anger. We can only look at what he did. Did he try to secede... No. If he believed in it would he have tried. Yes, he tried everything else.

Thirdly, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to secede to the states.

No it does not.

"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."

Nothing in there gives the right for secession.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 10:00:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 9:51:45 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/20/2010 9:37:31 PM, mongeese wrote:
Thirdly, the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to secede to the states.

No it does not.

"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."

Nothing in there gives the right for secession.

Then it gives no rights at all. The power to secede, not enumerated in the Constitution, is left to the states.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2010 10:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/20/2010 9:50:53 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/20/2010 9:44:31 PM, mongoose wrote:
Jefferson actually believed that the U. S. would form two or three separate unions.

Interesting. Could you post a link?

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
KevinC
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 7:59:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2010 4:29:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:38:59 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 3/19/2010 11:34:14 AM, comoncents wrote:
It was not meant the way some think, by the founders.
They wanted us to be united but separate, Still being united.
As evidence in the preamble of the Articles of Confederation!
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
http://www.usconstitution.net...

Yes, there was a Perpetual Union Clause in he Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation is not the founding document of the U.S. Therefore, the Perpetual Union Clause does not apply, unless you use Chief Justice Chase's opinion in the 1869 case mentioned above.

Anyone else who discusses the topic should not feel constrained by the set of questions and should not answer them in bullet form. They are just a general guide. I am hoping (and expecting from this group in particular) for some well thought out views on the matter.

True but the articles show the consciousness of our founders.

But if they had intended it to remain in effect it would have been added to the constitution. That precedence allows any clause from a previous formation document to be included in a superseding document at will and is just a bad precedence to set. Personally I think the AoC was a better foundation since it limited the central government to a minimum. Yes it barely gave the central government the power to govern but that makes them more beholden to the individual states rather than te states being forced by the Federal government that we have now.