Will Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

[itsbob]

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.

 

[kom526]

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

 

[Tilted]

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.)

 

[thatguy]

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.....

 

[itsbob]

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?

 

[itsbob]

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.

 

[thatguy]

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?

 

[Tilted]

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.

 

[Larry Gude]

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.

 

[Tilted]

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.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

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.

 

[vraiblonde]

This thread is making me

Tilted, I applaud your patience.

 

[thatguy]

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

 

[vraiblonde]

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.

 

[Tilted]

This thread is making me

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.

 

[vraiblonde]

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.

 

[This_person]

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

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.

 

[thatguy]

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......

 

[This_person]

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.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

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.