Will George W Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

Who is the worst on your list and why?

Will George W Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

Who is the worst on your list and why?By whom? Answering that will answer your question.

He is the best president we've had since Bill Clinton.

time will tell if he's the worst.

I'd imagine it's not looking too good for him at the moment though.

By whom? Answering that will answer your question.

I reference this article from the BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783286.stm)

Many of the Presidents listed did do a worse job than Bush, yet history softened the attitudes of the time and gave those men a new better light to rest in.
Interesting article.
Perhaps reading the article will give you a brief refresher in US History, and an enlightened opinion on the past Presidents.

I predict that history will be kind to George Bush, just as it's been kind to Abe Lincoln, who was extremely unpopular in his day.

The media is trying desperately to polish the turd, but Jimmy Carter is the worst President in my lifetime. I'd have to think a bit to give the all-time worst, but FDR is the first one that comes to mind.

Depends on how the economy goes and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If both end successfully, Bush might be looked upon highly in the future.

No, he is far from the worst in history, and there will be countless more to come that will be worse.

I predict that history will be kind to George Bush, just as it's been kind to Abe Lincoln, who was extremely unpopular in his day.

The media is trying desperately to polish the turd, but Jimmy Carter is the worst President in my lifetime. I'd have to think a bit to give the all-time worst, but FDR is the first one that comes to mind.:yeahthat:

Bush freed two nations of oppressive leaders and kept us safe after 9/11.

Carter will be hard to beat by anyone.


And what a stupid poll. :duh:

:yeahthat:

Bush freed two nations of oppressive leaders and kept us safe after 9/11.

Carter will be hard to beat by anyone.


And what a stupid poll. :duh:

If it is stupid, why did you comment?
Did you look at the BBC article? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783286.stm)

:yeahthat:

Bush freed two nations of oppressive leaders and kept us safe after 9/11.

Carter will be hard to beat by anyone.


And what a stupid poll. :duh:

OR, entered into an uneccessary war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, drove the american economy into the ground and made possible the rise of the hybrid

bwhahajajajajaja :bigwhoop:

Bush is a great man......:yay:

Grant was a POS.

OR, entered into an uneccessary war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, drove the american economy into the ground

Oh, you mean like Abraham Lincoln?

George Washington was the worst one. Thats why they put him on the 1 dollar bill.

Oh, you mean like Abraham Lincoln?

i guess if you think the US civil war is anything like what we did in iraq i guess you might htink that. Most sane people see a big difference between a war that was necessary to keep our country together and a war in a land thousands of miles away in a country that wouldn't have affect our existence one way or the other if we hadn't gone.

i guess if you think the US civil war is anything like what we did in iraq i guess you might htink that. Most sane people see a big difference between a war that was necessary to keep our country together and a war in a land thousands of miles away in a country that wouldn't have affect our existence one way or the other if we hadn't gone.

My finger and cheeks are getting tired.

:pointsandlaughs:

Get a history lesson outside your grade school books, then get back to me.

My finger and cheeks are getting tired.

:pointsandlaughs:

Get a history lesson outside your grade school books, then get back to me.

but but but...the war was about slavery! :rolleyes:

My finger and cheeks are getting tired.

:pointsandlaughs:

Get a history lesson outside your grade school books, then get back to me.

i completely understand that the reasons for the civil war were complex, however even an idiot can see the difference between a war between the states within the borders of our own contry and this particular action in iraq


but your reality is your own, that has been long established.

i completely understand that the reasons for the civil war were complex, however even an idiot can see the difference between a war between the states within the borders of our own contry and this particular action in iraq


but your reality is your own, that has been long established.One the Confederate States declared they were an independant country, what's the difference between Lincoln pre-emptively entering that soveriegn nation and overthrowing it's government for the protection of the United States and Bush doing the same thing with Iraq?

One the Confederate States declared they were an independant country, what's the difference between Lincoln pre-emptively entering that soveriegn nation and overthrowing it's government for the protection of the United States and Bush doing the same thing with Iraq?

which state or province of the USA was iraq before they succeded again?

but your reality is your own

As is yours.

But at least I have more than a nodding third grade acquaintance with American history.

which state or province of the USA was iraq before they succeded again?

Is martial law ok ?

Maryland My Maryland.........

As is yours.

But at least I have more than a nodding third grade acquaintance with American history.

or at least you think you do.


so tell me "genie of history", what was the reason Abe went to war with the south?

jimmy Carter - Hands Down No Question About It

If it is stupid, why did you comment?
Did you look at the BBC article? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783286.stm)Am I not allowed to comment?? The poll is stupid. It limits our response so I didn't vote. A simple "yes", "no" or "maybe" would have sufficed.



OR, entered into an uneccessary war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, drove the american economy into the ground and made possible the rise of the hybrid bwhahajajajajaja :bigwhoop:I see you're still a moron. :yay:



As is yours. But at least I have more than a nodding third grade acquaintance with American history.You're awful generous implying thatguy has a third grade education. I know third graders who write and spell much better than he does.

Oh, you mean like Abraham Lincoln?

but aside from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?

...this all depends on the criteria.

Wilson is an all time worst because of his desire to drag us into the stalemate in Europe. He set the stage and the tone for the rest of the century. Absent our involvement, Germany, Great Britain and France would have been forced to reconcile with each other, with THEIR problems, as equals, instead of the false victory we gave Great Britain and France. This would have likely had long term and deep stabilizing benefits. This can NOT be over stated as it ripped the US from moorings set in stone from 1776 of treading very lightly in foreign affairs along with setting the stage for WWII and the rise of Stalin and Mao.

So, when a president does something enormously bad, that's my criteria. FDR is also a bad one, being the closest thing we've ever had to a king. He also followed on the footsteps of Wilson engaging us in Europe's problems, again, to no good end, defeating one bad guy and helping give rise to a worse one.

On top of that, his 'New Deal' programs and attacks on the courts were enormously bad as well. They set new standards of social reconstruction that have proved, long term, to be some good, some bad, but at an enormous cost to the fabric of freedom and liberty.

LBJ and the Great Society programs were likewise bad and he added in a fraudulent war to boot that plagued our society for two generations.

Nixon was fairly bad, expanding government in all manner of new areas, but he was a piker compared to FDR and LBJ.

Carter and Clinton were like Buchanan; they left problems for others that could have been, perhaps, nipped in the bud. This is especially true of Clinton.

Bush has three main problems; he resurrected the Ghost of Vietnam; 1/2 assed ideological war that is likely to go down the tubes in the long run due to a complete misunderstanding of the people and the region. He has left energy and entitlement programs for someone else to fix and he has brought about another enormous bad in the bail out/socializing of our economy. He has opened Pandora's box in an FDR/LBJ esque fashion.

Worst ever? Probably not. If you don't like enormous expansions of government, he's pretty bad. If you don't like trans-formative bad things like the bail outs, he's pretty bad. If you didn't like Vietnam, he's pretty bad.

Wilson is still my worst all time. Bush's mistakes are going to be long lasting like FDR's and LBJ's, but, we'll live with and through them. I think. And Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they are quagmires and have strengthened our enemies, as the end of the day, it'll be no worse than a total waste of time and loss like Vietnam.

Wilson set the stage for a century of slaughter.

jimmy Carter - Hands Down No Question About It

This poll lacks a few other choices. That's what makes it a lame poll. Anyway, if you are young, listen to the liberal media and don't know much about history, you will be inclined to think Bush is the worst President we've ever had.

If you've been around a few years and know about history, you will know that he has not been the worst. He has made some very unpopular decisions that many Americans don't like but at least he made decisions, unlike some of the other Presidents we've had (Clinton).

There are many Americans still enjoying the euphoria of Obama being elected, with some notion that he will be the savior. He may do some good things but he will also make some decisions unpopular with some segments of American society. Some will deem him a bad President.

With this said, I must ask. Why would anyone want to be a President?

This poll lacks a few other choices. That's what makes it a lame poll. Anyway, if you are young, an idiot or both listen to the liberal media and don't know much about history, you will be inclined to think Bush is the worst President we've ever had.
If you've been around a few years and know about history, you will know that he has not been the worst. He has made some very unpopular decisions that many Americans don't like but at least he made decisions, unlike some of the other Presidents we've had (Clinton).

There are many Americans still enjoying the euphoria of Obama being elected, with some notion that he will be the savior. He may do some good things but he will also make some decisions unpopular with some segments of American society. Some will deem him a bad President.

With this said, I must ask. Why would anyone want to be a President?

fixed....it's amazing how stupid we have become as a world...not just a nation...idiocracy is coming true!!

Oh well...looking at the bright side i might be able to have a bday party at Buttfu*&ers...:lmao:

I'd be hard pressed to pin down exactly where he ranks, but he's probably on the list of the 42 worse Presidents.

George Washington was the worst one. Thats why they put him on the 1 dollar bill.

So that makes the Bush the best right?

He was so great that they couldn't put him on a single bill, so they sent us a little bail out money..

I like to call that my BuschBucks:lol:

The media will make sure that Bush is deemed the worst president ever, because the internetz was not around for FDR. At least we had TV for the debacle of Jimmah Carter.

, drove the american economy into the ground

bwhahajajajajaja :bigwhoop:

Oh, a history AND economics lesson! Do pray tell us how the president ran the economy in the ground.

Looks like PMSNBC can put another notch on its belt.

So that makes the Bush the best right?

He was so great that they couldn't put him on a single bill, so they sent us a little bail out money..

I like to call that my BuschBucks:lol:

I'd rather have a one dollar bill then a negative 600 billion dollar bill hehe

which state or province of the USA was iraq before they succeded again?Pointless question. They were an independant nation, as was the Confederate States.

Will George W Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

He will be, at first.


But as time marches on, more and more people will realize that he's nowhere near the monster-demon idiot that the media and liberals have convinced themselves that he is.


He'll be considered average/mediocre at best and at worst.

Amazing. People always expect the president to be some sort of superhero with perfect foresight and an expert in domestic and foreign policy and economics.

In reality the president is normally some ego ridden schmuck propped up by power brokers who hope they have influence once the person is in office.

No intellligent person would want to be president and wear that target on their back. Presidents are blamed for everything. Who wants that?

So that makes the Bush the best right?

He was so great that they couldn't put him on a single bill, so they sent us a little bail out money..

I like to call that my BuschBucks:lol:

No he is not on a bill. Whoever is on the highest circulating bill is the best president.

Than means that Benjamin Franklin is the number 1 president since he is featured on the 100 dollar bill.

No he is not on a bill. Whoever is on the highest circulating bill is the best president.

Than means that Benjamin Franklin is the number 1 president since he is featured on the 100 dollar bill.
:roflmao:

No he is not on a bill. Whoever is on the highest circulating bill is the best president.

Than means that Benjamin Franklin is the number 1 president since he is featured on the 100 dollar bill.

:roflmao:

It's all about the Benjamin's baby:getdown:

It's all about the Benjamin's baby:getdown:And President Franklin had quite a presidency :lol:

And President Franklin had quite a presidency :lol:

I don't know the particulars of his acomplishments as a president. But I can say that no other president has invented as many things as he did.

I don't know the particulars of his acomplishments as a president. But I can say that no other president has invented as many things as he did.

heh


serious?

heh


serious?

He invented electricity. No other president has acomplished anything near the importance of that.

He invented electricity. No other president has acomplished anything near the importance of that.

:killingme

heh


serious?

I think he is.

I think he is.

I can't tell

lol

I think he must be kidding.

Kiding about what? This whole thing was an opinion based question.

We are just laughing because Franklin, while he did invent electricity, was far from being the best president. He also invented the electric chair, flat iron, and started the spanish inquisition. When previous presidents came to the white house, he made them test out the electric chair. Washington actually burned his scalp, which led to the wet rag you put under the electric chair's headpiece.

I guess your school didn't teach you enough about bad ol' prez benny.

We are just laughing because Franklin, while he did invent electricity, was far from being the best president. He also invented the electric chair, flat iron, and started the spanish inquisition.

I guess your school didn't teach you enough about bad ol' prez benny.
Or, to open PMs, telling you why people question your pick.

Or, to open PMs, telling you why people question your pick.

What?

What?Chain's, not yours

Or, to open PMs, telling you why people question your pick.

I answered your PM, Franklin was the 13th president.

Chain's, not yours

Boo. You just ruined our fun.

I answered your PM, Franklin was the 13th president.Apparently, the fun is still there.

I answered your PM, Franklin was the 13th president.

:killingme

I answered your PM, Franklin was the 13th president.
For you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States)

:killingme at this thread.

Poll dosen't have my answer. No, FDR.

For you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States)


Are you sure? I could swear that I read somewhere that Franklin was the 13th president not Fillmore. I am going to have to do some research to verify this.

Are you sure? I could swear that I read somewhere that Franklin was the 13th president not Fillmore. I am going to have to do some research to verify this.

:killingme

That is from wikipedia. My guess is This_Person editted Franklin from being the 13th before PMing you.

:killingme

That is from wikipedia. My guess is This_Person editted Franklin from being the 13th before PMing you.

:killingme Count on it.

:killingme

That is from wikipedia. My guess is This_Person editted Franklin from being the 13th before PMing you.:blushing: I've been caught.

I didn't know you can edit wickedpedia. I think I am going to go there and change it back.

I didn't know you can edit wicked pedia. I think I am going to go there and change it back.

:popcorn:

While your at it, I hear that Mike Tyson and Abe Lincoln looked a lot alike. The pic of Abe they are using is terrible, why don't you just edit Tyson in instead?

:popcorn:

While your at it, I hear that Mike Tyson and Abe Lincoln looked a lot alike. The pic of Abe they are using is terrible, why don't you just edit Tyson in instead?

Good Idea. I think I am going to go on there tonight and changes all of the presidents pictures to photos of aliens.

I predict that history will be kind to George Bush, just as it's been kind to Abe Lincoln, who was extremely unpopular in his day.

The media is trying desperately to polish the turd, but Jimmy Carter is the worst President in my lifetime. I'd have to think a bit to give the all-time worst, but FDR is the first one that comes to mind.

I second that.

Pointless question. They were an independant nation, as was the Confederate States.

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point. Yes, they were.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

This is not a question, it is a fact; the CSA was a separate nation.

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.:yeahthat: to all of the above.

In addition, read here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp)

Excellent and truthful post Tiltled! Unfortunately, it is not a truth that is taught in this country as States sovereignty and States rights are suppressed and done away with.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

Okay, well you are wrong. But feel free to look like a dolt by continuing to argue.

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.)

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily.

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):


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.


Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

Okay, well you are wrong. But feel free to look like a dolt by continuing to argue.

feel free to quote the claus in the constitution or list the states that have been allowed to suceed.....


or maybe just give the established process of succession. I mean there is a clear process through which states are entered into the union, there must be one for leaveing, right?

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.) The CSA initiated hostilities by attacking federal institutions in numerous states.

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily. They did after federal institutions were attacked by the CSA

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):



Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

The CSA made a grave, fatal error in NOT finding a way to peacefully succeed, to buy assets, make some sort of deal. Bottom line, passions won the day, pro union Southerners got swamped in the process and the fire eaters got their war. Lincoln looked for a way to blame it on them to hold the union together and they gave it to him.

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.)

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily.

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):



Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

I dont think that the 10th amendment talks to sucession at at.

feel free to quote the claus in the constitution or list the states that have been allowed to suceed.....


or maybe just give the established process of succession. I mean there is a clear process through which states are entered into the union, there must be one for leaveing, right?

...if a state chooses to succeed, they can succeed through whatever process the given state decides is THEIR process. There is no federal coercion in joining the union, there is no coercion getting out. That's a basic principle of the union. Lincoln used the premise that the pro succession leaders of the South unlawfully took power, committed violence against the lawful federal authority and he simply acted to enforce the laws as they were, his duty.

There is NO doubt in mind had the South succeeded peacefully, then we would have peacefully become two nations. That they could have done it peacefully was probably impossible.

OR, entered into an uneccessary war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, drove the american economy into the ground and made possible the rise of the hybrid

bwhahajajajajaja :bigwhoop:

It's only an uneccessary war after we learned the truth AFTER we invaded. With the information he had, and that Saddam confessed to, it was a VERY necessary war. Easy to play armchair quarterback after someone else has made the hard decisions.

HE drove the American economy in the ground? Can you show me where it's in the Presidents pervue to handle spending, and control the economy? Though that would fall flat in the laps of CONGRESS!!

I dont think that the 10th amendment talks to sucession at at.

Even if it didn't, you are wrong on the basis of simple contract law.

However, the 10th Amendment absolutely does grant them the right of secession. Generally speaking, the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out the rights and powers of the states. It characterizes the powers of the federal government, and it restricts some powers of the states. Every other power is explicitly left to the states. This is a very simple concept, and one that is not in dispute.

You are simply wrong.

Did you find the provision of the Constitution that specifically prohibited the states from seceding? And which allowed for military invasion if they did?

feel free to quote the claus in the constitution or list the states that have been allowed to suceed.....


or maybe just give the established process of succession. I mean there is a clear process through which states are entered into the union, there must be one for leaveing, right?

Massachusetts, Kentucky, VA.. and PA

None of the above are states.

SECEDE is the word you are looking for.
se⋅cede   [si-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object), -ced⋅ed, -ced⋅ing.
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.


Not succeed
suc⋅ceed   [suhk-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result: Our efforts succeeded.
2. to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like: Grass will not succeed in this dry soil.
3. to accomplish what is attempted or intended: We succeeded in

The CSA made a grave, fatal error in NOT finding a way to peacefully succeed, to buy assets, make some sort of deal. Bottom line, passions won the day, pro union Southerners got swamped in the process and the fire eaters got their war. Lincoln looked for a way to blame it on them to hold the union together and they gave it to him.

To which federal institutions are you referring Larry? I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious as to what you are referring.

If you are speaking of Fort Sumter, then it was on what South Carolina reasonably considered its property. After South Carolina seceded, a foreign nation's troops occupied it. South Carolina asked them to leave, and after they continually refused nation, South Carolina attacked them.

I concede that someone could make a case that Fort Sumter and the island it occupied was still part of the Union, but I would strongly disagree with any conclusion to that effect. (I've been in Fort Sumter by the way, pretty neat place.)

Even if it didn't, you are wrong on the basis of simple contract law.

However, the 10th Amendment absolutely does grant them the right of secession. Generally speaking, the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out the rights and powers of the states. It characterizes the powers of the federal government, and it restricts some powers of the states. Every other power is explicitly left to the states. This is a very simple concept, and one that is not in dispute.

You are simply wrong.

Did you find the provision of the Constitution that specifically prohibited the states from seceding? And which allowed for military invasion if they did?

here's a question for you.
If congress has to approve statehood, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have to approve leaving the union? I mean states dont get to join just because they want to.....

SECEDE is the word you are looking for.
se⋅cede   [si-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object), -ced⋅ed, -ced⋅ing.
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.


Not succeed
suc⋅ceed   [suhk-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result: Our efforts succeeded.
2. to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like: Grass will not succeed in this dry soil.
3. to accomplish what is attempted or intended: We succeeded in

Not reseed, or recede?

here's a question for you.
If congress has to approve statehood, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have to approve leaving the union? I mean states dont get to join just because they want to.....

The South did it prior to the Civil War without congressional approval.

To which federal institutions are you referring Larry? I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious as to what you are referring.

If you are speaking of Fort Sumter, then it was on what South Carolina reasonably considered its property. After South Carolina seceded, a foreign nation's troops occupied it. South Carolina asked them to leave, and after they continually refused nation, South Carolina attacked them.

I concede that someone could make a case that Fort Sumter and the island it occupied was still part of the Union, but I would strongly disagree with any conclusion to that effect. (I've been in Fort Sumter by the way, pretty neat place.)

so if washington DC was to lawfully leave the union (under your reading of the 10th) DC would keep all of the federal proprties because they are on DC land?

here's a question for you.
If congress has to approve statehood, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have to approve leaving the union? I mean states dont get to join just because they want to.....

We don't have to consider what 'stand(s) to reason', because we have the rules - if the Constitution, or an interpretation thereof, does not not specifically prohibited a power to a state (or give it to the federal government), then they have that power. It couldn't be much clearer.

Furthermore, your point is a non sequitur. Congress did not have to 'approve' of South Carolina's statehood, they were an original signatory to the contract. They did, in fact, 'join just because they want(ed) to'.

This issue is so absurdly simple, that I can't believe anyone still argues it. Either by the general principles of contract law, or the actual text of the Constitution (i.e. the 10th Amendment), South Carolina had the right to secede.

If someone wants to argue other issues surrounding the Civil War - then that's fine. There is plenty of room on either side to debate the relative merits of that conflict. This, however, is not a point that can be reasonably argued. That act is simply disingenuous and reeks of denial.

To which federal institutions are you referring Larry? I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious as to what you are referring. Armories in most of the states. Tax offices. All sorts of government offices and installations. I think it was like December 1860 or so that the folks in North Carolina took over an arsenal or two and, when everyone chilled out, they gave everything back as it was seen by all to have been unlawful. Robert E Lee was nearly placed under arrest in Texas before he went to DC when his post was taken over by Texas

If you are speaking of Fort Sumter, then it was on what South Carolina reasonably considered its property. After South Carolina seceded, a foreign nation's troops occupied it. South Carolina asked them to leave, and after they continually refused nation, South Carolina attacked them. And Anderson told Beauregard that in a few more days he'd have to give the place up for lack of food. War was wanted. War was got.

I concede that someone could make a case that Fort Sumter and the island it occupied was still part of the Union, but I would strongly disagree with any conclusion to that effect. (I've been in Fort Sumter by the way, pretty neat place.)

There is no reasonable process that declares South Carolina instantly gets back the fort the moment, the day, the week, the month they succeeded. They could have made it known far and wide that they wanted to pay the government for the fort, buy it. Southern pride dictated otherwise. Surrounding the place with loaded weapons wasn't exactly the most peaceable way to go about taking control.

so if washington DC was to lawfully leave the union (under your reading of the 10th) DC would keep all of the federal proprties because they are on DC land?

Non-sequitur, D.C. is not a state and not a signatory to the contract in the way that other entities are.

so if washington DC was to lawfully leave the union (under your reading of the 10th) DC would keep all of the federal proprties because they are on DC land?

Nope. DC is NOT a state.

This thread is making me :banghead:

Tilted, I applaud your patience.

Nope. DC is NOT a state.

then lets say Washington, not DC......



and tilted, contracts that you can get out of generally have condictions that must be met or that if ignored allow either party to nullify the contract.

some dont allow for individuals to leave (think HOAs) once you are in you are in

Surrounding the place with loaded weapons wasn't exactly the most peaceable way to go about taking control.

But you know that, at that point, they were not interested in peaceable secession. They wanted the fight.

Anyway, that is beside the point. The question was, did SC have the right to secede from the Union, and the answer is yes.

This thread is making me :banghead:

Tilted, I applaud your patience.

It has now run out. Not, however, as it relates to the conversation with Larry about the various Confederate States specific pre-war actions. That seems like a worthy converrsation, and one that isn't quite as clear.

It has now run out. Not, however, as it relates to the conversation with Larry about the various Confederate States specific pre-war actions. That seems like a worthy converrsation, and one that isn't quite as clear.

I agree, that is a more interesting conversation than "Is a dog a dog, or like OMG could it possibly be a cat? Or maybe even an elephant? Can I just call it whatever I want?"

Revisionist history annoys the crap out of me. And ignorance of history is one thing, but to insist on something that is untrue, then keep insisting after someone corrects you - that annoys me even more.

and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoriaThe Confederate States did to the United States exactly what the United States did to England. They just lost instead of won the war.

They declared themselves a separate and soveriegn nation - not a guy who declared his yard that way, but an actual group of states that declared themselves a separate nation.

That they lost the war is muc like the American Indians losing, or Mexico losing, or anything else. They lost, and we took and/or retook the land and imposed our laws. They still were separate nations.

The Confederate States did to the United States exactly what the United States did to England. They just lost instead of won the war.

They declared themselves a separate and soveriegn nation - not a guy who declared his yard that way, but an actual group of states that declared themselves a separate nation.

That they lost the war is muc like the American Indians losing, or Mexico losing, or anything else. They lost, and we took and/or retook the land and imposed our laws. They still were separate nations.

and history is written by the victors.

precedent shows that you CANNOT just leave this happy union.

but you can call it revisionist if you want. The FACT of the matter is that no state has ever been allowed to secede from the union, none. Additionally, there is no method for such an act, or provision under the constitution.


in fact, you might want to look into this:
In Texas v. White (1869), the Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".


its from wiki, so you might want to investigate further......

and history is written by the victors.

precedent shows that you CANNOT just leave this happy union.

but you can call it revisionist if you want. The FACT of the matter is that no state has ever been allowed to secede from the union, none. Additionally, there is no method for such an act, or provision under the constitution.


in fact, you might want to look into this:
In Texas v. White (1869), the Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".


its from wiki, so you might want to investigate further......What would have been the outcome if the Confederate States had WON the war?

Would the US Supreme Court have had any standing in the CSA if the USA wasn't able to militarily enforce those states have remained with the Union?

The operative word in your statement is "allowed". In other words, they did leave. They did become a separate nation. That nation was then defeated in war and subordinated as a part of this nation as a result of their inferior military capabilities. It doesn't change the fact that they were a separate nation.

But you know that, at that point, they were not interested in peaceable secession. They wanted the fight. Some did. Some didn't. Jefferson Davis struggled desperately to get South Carolinians to swallow their pride and keep being patient while he tried to find a way to avoid war. The fire eaters saw war as the only way to become separate fearing too many of their fellow countrymen would rather stay in the union and keep working on differences rather than come to the collision. However, all that matters is that they did initiate the fighting, so, as a practical matter, you're totally correct.

Anyway, that is beside the point. The question was, did SC have the right to secede from the Union, and the answer is yes.

Agreed. Of course they did.

What would have been the outcome if the Confederate States had WON the war?

Go ahead - bang your head. :banghead:

You know you want to.

That nation was then defeated in war and subordinated as a part of this nation as a result of their inferior military capabilities.

Ohhhhh!!!!!!! TAKE THAT BACK!!!!! :duel:



:lol:

What would have been the outcome if the Confederate States had WON the war?

Would the US Supreme Court have had any standing in the CSA if the USA wasn't able to militarily enforce those states have remained with the Union?

The operative word in your statement is "allowed". In other words, they did leave. They did become a separate nation. That nation was then defeated in war and subordinated as a part of this nation as a result of their inferior military capabilities. It doesn't change the fact that they were a separate nation.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) - enfacto (http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./74/700/)

Just to make it interesting.

In either case, we recognize that it is the Supreme Court that inteprets the Constitution. If it says the Constitution guarantees the right to free beer, then it does until such is overturned.

If it is the Court's opinion in 1869 and onward that the Constitution does not permit states to secede, than we understand that it never did. That is, if it is unconstitutional NOW, then it was unconstitutional THEN.

If it is the Court's opinion in 1869 and onward that the Constitution does not permit states to secede, than we understand that it never did. That is, if it is unconstitutional NOW, then it was unconstitutional THEN.
However, if the states seceded, they were no longer bound by the US Constitution, regardless of what it said.

The States were united by mutual agreement, not by force. Until the Civil War, that is.

However, if the states seceded, they were no longer bound by the US Constitution, regardless of what it said.

The States were united by mutual agreement, not by force. Until the Civil War, that is.

But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.

If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.

The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.

But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.

If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.

The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.

...but we're talking about Texas v. White 1868, not Texas v. White 1860. It was not universally accepted prior to the war that a state could succeed. It was, however, WIDELY accepted that they could, both North and South. Hell, New York threatened to do so in the middle of the war and New Hampshire, I think, nearly did so in the 1830's or there abouts.

Point is, it was NOT settled law prior to the war and, had Davis and company had a little more self control, it is highly likely that succession would have been accomplished and done so peacefully. In my view.

I realize this is the kind of thing we're not supposed to nitpick about, but can people just use the words "secede" and "secession" rather than "succeed" and "succession" (which, etymologically, don't even mean nearly the same thing to each other let alone the ones we're using).

I just drives me nuts to have to go back over a sentence and substitute the word back in because of what was meant. It would be like me using "glory" for "fine knock-down argument".

However, if the states seceded, they were no longer bound by the US Constitution, regardless of what it said.

The States were united by mutual agreement, not by force. Until the Civil War, that is.

That's right.

And, still, the premise, however dubious, for the union using force after the South initiated hostilities, was that the Southern leaders had broken STATE laws and were thus violating the rights of US citizens within those states.

Davis and Lincoln were VERY conscience of how this would all look in histories pages and both tried to be very careful to be seen as acting properly. Davis lost control of events in a new nation full of men who didn't want ANYONE telling them what to do. There was talk during the war of some of the brand new Confederate States seceding from the CSA!!! :lol:

I realize this is the kind of thing we're not supposed to nitpick about, but can people just use the words "secede" and "secession" rather than "succeed" and "succession" (which, etymologically, don't even mean nearly the same thing to each other let alone the ones we're using).

I just drives me nuts to have to go back over a sentence and substitute the word back in because of what was meant. It would be like me using "glory" for "fine knock-down argument".

...I apologize. I will endeavor to not cause you such stresses. Hopefully, I will succeed.

But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.

If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.

The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.

However, that decision was written AFTER the Civil War. Prior to that, they were "*these* United States", a collection of states that were united by mutual agreement and purpose, not held hostage at gunpoint.

But, even so, let's say that Texas vs. White was written prior to the Civil War. If a state secedes, they would no longer be bound by their former nation's Constitution or court decisions. Then their former nation will have to go beat their ass and force them back into the fold, which is what happened in the early 1860s.

...but we're talking about Texas v. White 1868, not Texas v. White 1860.

The original discussion is whether or not it is Constitutional. If the SCOTUS declares something as unconstitutional now, it's always that way. It's not like law, which changes today and changes back the next day. If the Constitution says so, it always has. It's kind of like Biblical interpretation - it doesn't proceed from the moment of declaration. It's retroactive because you're interpreting an historical document, not passing law.


Point is, it was NOT settled law prior to the war and, had Davis and company had a little more self control, it is highly likely that succession would have been accomplished and done so peacefully. In my view.

And where do you presume this? If secession was not Constitutional, then it still would be if Davis had waited until hell froze over. They still would have had to fight a war. I think war was inevitable anyway. As much as people want to dance around slavery, fact is, without slavery, there's no war. The South had been restricted in its slave trade and needed the option to expand it into the new territories. The North wanted to end that. Sooner or later it would either come to blows or slavery would mercifully die on its own, and the issue of secession would pale away like so many other secessionist movements have.

...I apologize. I will endeavor to not cause you such stresses. Hopefully, I will succeed.

:buddies:

However, that decision was written AFTER the Civil War. Prior to that, they were "*these* United States", a collection of states that were united by mutual agreement and purpose, not held hostage at gunpoint.

But, even so, let's say that Texas vs. White was written prior to the Civil War. If a state secedes, they would no longer be bound by their former nation's Constitution or court decisions. Then their former nation will have to go beat their ass and force them back into the fold, which is what happened in the early 1860s.

Did you read the link? It addresses this.

If the Constitution says so, it always has.

What about Prohibition? And sufferage? And equal rights?

The original discussion is whether or not it is Constitutional. If the SCOTUS declares something as unconstitutional now, it's always that way. It's not like law, which changes today and changes back the next day. If the Constitution says so, it always has. It's kind of like Biblical interpretation - it doesn't proceed from the moment of declaration. It's retroactive because you're interpreting an historical document, not passing law.



And where do you presume this? If secession was not Constitutional, then it still would be if Davis had waited until hell froze over. They still would have had to fight a war. I think war was inevitable anyway. As much as people want to dance around slavery, fact is, without slavery, there's no war. The South had been restricted in its slave trade and needed the option to expand it into the new territories. The North wanted to end that. Sooner or later it would either come to blows or slavery would mercifully die on its own, and the issue of secession would pale away like so many other secessionist movements have.
Using that logic our secession from Great Britain would be illegal and any Constitution derived from obtaining our independence would be illegal, correct?

What about Prohibition? And sufferage? And equal rights?

Good that you brought these up. You realize that with the exception of Prohibition, these are rights further clarified - they are understood to be always protected by the Constitution and that Congress may not forbid them.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

It's a right already there. It's like declaring the Patuxent a river - it didn't just become one when it was declared. It's recognizing something already true.

If the SCOTUS declares secession a Constitutional act, then by the same reason it retroactively legalizes actions in accordance done in the past.

But Texas vs. White probably isn't going to change this. I'm guessing you either didn't read it or haven't finished it yet.

The original discussion is whether or not it is Constitutional. If the SCOTUS declares something as unconstitutional now, it's always that way.

I beg to differ. Slavery was constitutionally anointed prior to the Civil War. That changed, but that does not change that Dredd Scott was scotus decided.

Did you read the link? It addresses this.

Yuck.

Anyway, now that I've skimmed it and get the gist, it appears to be a case of the winners making the laws. "We won, so you can no longer legally secede, and in fact were never able to do so."

However, direct your attention to the Reconstruction Acts, and tell me if the secessionist states were indeed states and always had been, equal to the Union states, or if they were conquered territories. There was a criteria for the CSA states to be readmitted into the Union, therefore they must not have been considered states until after they lost the war.

And where do you presume this? If secession was not Constitutional, then it still would be if Davis had waited until hell froze over.

I don't presume this. It is written in more places than enough and has been addressed from the standpoint of judges and senators and governors and presidents of the day; some thought you could. Others thought you couldn't. However, it was NOT, had NOT been addressed by the scotus at that time.

I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.

Yuck.

Anyway, now that I've skimmed it and get the gist, it appears to be a case of the winners making the laws. "We won, so you can no longer legally secede, and in fact were never able to do so." That's correct

However, direct your attention to the Reconstruction Acts, and tell me if the secessionist states were indeed states and always had been, equal to the Union states, or if they were conquered territories. There was a criteria for the CSA states to be readmitted into the Union, therefore they must not have been considered states until after they lost the war.

This is another can of worms; Lincoln refused to consider the seceded states as anything other than members of the Union the entire war. He considered it rebellion within the states and never stopped thinking that most people of the South never wanted secession. Booth's bullet was the one that REALLY hurt the South. Reconstruction would have likely been as Lincoln wished; the welcome return of wayward children, not the hard peace wanted by so many in the North.

Using that logic our secession from Great Britain would be illegal and any Constitution derived from obtaining our independence would be illegal, correct?

Yes - and no.

Let's put it this way. You're a guest at my house (I hate using these, because SOMEONE gets all worked up over precision in metaphors). You ask my permission to leave, and I refuse. You go out the door anyway.

Someone asks "did you have Sam's permission?". Of course you didn't. You left anyway, but you don't go around saying you received it.

Of course it was "illegal" to break away from England. It's not as though countries have gentleman's agreements on how to conduct wars. It's not a country club affair.

Texas vs. White makes it clear enough that states did not enter into something like a marriage with the rest of the United States, free to legally separate at will. Not any more than St Mary's county has the legal right to separate from the rest of Maryland. The counties have separate laws and governments, but it doesn't make them a loose confederation. They're bound, and according to the Constitution, states are as well, forming a perpetual union.

I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.

:yeahthat: Virginia and New York made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

Virginia - "We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes".

But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.

If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.

The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.

:yeahthat:

and vrai, here is a hint for you;
prohibition was deemed unconstitutional
not letting women vote, unconstitutional


see where i am going with this?

it was and always was, even though a law was passed that permitted it.....

I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.

Supreme Court would declare such law unconstitional - therefore, illegal.

Yes - and no.

Let's put it this way. You're a guest at my house (I hate using these, because SOMEONE gets all worked up over precision in metaphors). You ask my permission to leave, and I refuse. You go out the door anyway. What a terrible analogy...

Someone asks "did you have Sam's permission?". Of course you didn't. You left anyway, but you don't go around saying you received it.

Of course it was "illegal" to break away from England. It's not as though countries have gentleman's agreements on how to conduct wars. It's not a country club affair. That was seen, by all sides, as a rebellion, as an act of defiance. The South saw secession as a a gentleman simply choosing to quit his membership in a club. The North tended to see it as rebellion BY SUBVERTING the will of the people within the state. Most people of the day thought secession was fine. Peaceful secession. That's why Davis and Lincoln went to such great, agonizing lengths to avoid throwing the first punch.

Texas vs. White makes it clear enough that states did not enter into something like a marriage with the rest of the United States, free to legally separate at will. Not any more than St Mary's county has the legal right to separate from the rest of Maryland. The counties have separate laws and governments, but it doesn't make them a loose confederation. They're bound, and according to the Constitution, states are as well, forming a perpetual union.

St. Mary's could leave the state if they chose to just as I could choose to renounce my citizenship. It would be HIGHLY impractical and hugely difficult and VERY unlikely to be approved by the people, but they could do it.

Supreme Court would declare such law unconstitional - therefore, illegal.

...what law? Secession is not a law; it would be the will of the people. Granted, as I say, it would be prohibitively daunting to achieve, but, it could be done.

Also, a Supreme Court decision does not equal constitutional law. The Dred Scott decision is a good example. It was a court opinion, not constitutional law because nowhere in the Constitution does is say that blacks are property and have no rights. In fact, the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision constitutionally.

By your reasoning, Sam, the 14th Amendment says that blacks are citizens, and the 13th Amendment says that slavery is prohibited; so it must be that blacks were *always* citizens and slavery was *always* prohibited, and that is simply not true.

...what law? Secession is not a law; it would be the will of the people. Granted, as I say, it would be prohibitively daunting to achieve, but, it could be done.

(sigh)

The question has been raised repeatedly, did they have the LEGAL RIGHT to secede? Was it Constitutional? And I have supported my argument with the SCOTUS case Texas vs. White, gave a link, saying, NO, it is not Constitutional, therefore - no, not 'legal'. (Will SOMEONE read this?)

You may be able to get every last person in the county to petition for secession, but it won't make it legal. If they have to amend the Constitution to do so - THEN - it will be. It isn't now, and it still isn't.

Anyway, I have to leave my desk for the day.

(sigh)

The question has been raised repeatedly, did they have the LEGAL RIGHT to secede? Was it Constitutional? And I have supported my argument with the SCOTUS case Texas vs. White, gave a link, saying, NO, it is not Constitutional, therefore - no, not 'legal'. (Will SOMEONE read this?)

You may be able to get every last person in the county to petition for secession, but it won't make it legal. If they have to amend the Constitution to do so - THEN - it will be. It isn't now, and it still isn't.

Anyway, I have to leave my desk for the day.

I am not arguing what White said in 1868. I am stating that 1868 is not 1860, so, it was NOT settled at that point. If it had been settled, it would have initiated secession at that point because the right to secession was a commonly accepted right in all of the South and much of the North.

...for Sam tomorrow;

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White)

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.


And this;

The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)


Paragraph one.

...for Sam tomorrow;

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White)



And this;

The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm)


Paragraph one.

a revolution while always an option is completely different than legally seceding. and you will notice, the only legal option noted was with the approval of the group....

a revolution while always an option is completely different than legally seceding. and you will notice, the only legal option noted was with the approval of the group....[/

...right, which I listed in my post about secession being an option for a state or county.

...right, which I listed in my post about secession being an option for a state or county.

sorry for the confusion, but the supreme court only allowed legal secession through approval of the group (of states party to the contract, not the group of people wanting to secede)

sorry for the confusion, but the supreme court only allowed legal secession through approval of the group (of states party to the contract, not the group of people wanting to secede)

...right. As I say, it wouldn't be easy.