USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)

[amadeus]

... if they were willing to go to war against their own countryman on the off chance Lincoln may have, you know, abolished the practice; I think we can safely conclude that it was kinda unlikely, or at least not in the same realm as the far more direct approach of simply crushing the Confederacy.

Do you think slavery would continue to this day if the CSA was allowed to peacefully secede?

 

[Masada]

Do you think slavery would continue to this day if the CSA was allowed to peacefully secede?

I have no idea. But I don't think letting it work itself out is a good approach to the problem. It could easily have survived in beginning of last century and we have perfectly good models for it continuing in other forms right up until the present in Suud Afrika and Rhodesia. I'm not sure sitting back on our haunches and watching to see how it might develop is a Good Thing.

 

[Dachs]

Um, you remember what amadeus thinks about South Africa and Rhodesia, right?

 

[Masada]

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he supports slavery in the South for the next 50 - 90 years.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Do you think slavery would continue to this day if the CSA was allowed to peacefully secede?

Do you think communist Russia would have continued on its failed ways or would have peacefully converted to Democracy ? Eventually ?

 

[amadeus]

Do you think communist Russia would have continued on its failed ways or would have peacefully converted to Democracy ? Eventually ?

And the award for most confusing post goes to... you! 1992 called and it left a message for you saying that Russia did in fact abandon communism and replaced it with a flawed democracy, all pretty peacefully.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's a real pity the Constitution didn't explicitly grant the Federal government the power to control secession, automatically making it a State power via the 10th Amendment.

/me prepares for the Dachs downvote!

Technically it could be interpreted as a People's power as well. Whether secession is controlled by the state government or via referendum of the people in that state, I don't really care too much.

But its NOT a federal power.

 

[Tacitusitis]

The title of this thread kind of says it all, doesn't it.

 

[Masada]

Yes, it is strangely apt.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Only in the worst parts of America is this even considered a subject appropriate to debate.

What a wonder that if you get enough Tea Party folks together they start fantasizing about what woulda happened if the North never started the War Of Aggression.

 

[Masada]

I'm all for having them do something now. It might make for interesting television viewing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Only in the worst parts of America is this even considered a subject appropriate to debate.

What a wonder that if you get enough Tea Party folks together they start fantasizing about what woulda happened if the North never started the War Of Aggression.

Can you explain in the Constitution where secession is given to the Feds to control? No? Well then its a valid question...

 

[useless]

Go secede, we'll see how you're doing in 2-3 years time without the Gubermint.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Go secede, we'll see how you're doing in 2-3 years time without the Gubermint.

We don't need them

But right now, I'm simply defending its legality under Constitutional law. Not actually advocating it.

 

[useless]

Irony being a Gubermint would form in the seceded states. You can't escape the state unless you go to Somalia.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Irony being a Gubermint would form in the seceded states. You can't escape the state unless you go to Somalia.

Yet a smaller one and a less corrupt one

I'm not against all government. Just big government. But that's a different issue. I'm debating Constitutional law here. I am not defending the CSA or defending modern secession, only its legality under the Constitution.

 

[useless]

How would it be less corrupt? Smaller Gubermint does not = good unless you are moderately wealthy.

 

[Masada]

But right now, I'm simply defending its legality under Constitutional law. Not actually advocating it.

Texas v. White

 

[bhsup]

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State."


So....Constitutional backing for that tripe, or a house built on sand? Also, regardless, it was after the fact so this ruling doesn't mean squat for 1861.

 

[Nukeknockout]

alright, quick history lesson:

The "CSA" seceded as a result of their candidate(John C. Breckenridge, Southern Democratic party) losing the 1860 elections BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in. This makes their secession quite petty(kinda like all the TEA party rants about Obama).

In the events leading up to April 12, 1861, The "CSA" demanded that American troops leave their territory. The USA and the "CSA" began to negotiate and political power deal and all that crap, and the USA sent a fleet to evacuate Fort Sumter. The "CSA" bombarded the USA garrison in Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. The fact that the "CSA" attacked and laid siege to Fort Sumter while a US fleet was coming to evacuate It's own fort strongly suggests that this "CSA" wanted war very badly.

All military installations are federally owned, precisely to prevent crap where the states say that their territory is being occupied.

To say that the federal government does not have control over secession because the constitution does not explicitly grant it that power is to argue that we the people do not have the right to marry or have children because the constitution does not explicitly grant us that right. The constitution(like the bible) is vaguely worded so we won't take it literally.

-Nukeknockout