25 Nov 12
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat makes right, right?
Quoting Nazis (probably incorrectly since right wingers here almost invariably simply repeat quotes they have seen on their extremist blogs) isn't nearly as impressive a rhetorical device as you think.
Right makes right. The US could have responded to the illegal secession attempts by the Southern States in a number of ways. The one they ...[text shortened]... tually chose (after those States attacked US troops and sailors) is hardly morally blameworthy.
For myself, I believe in a higher power, i.e. natural law. You can twist it, mangle it, and ignore it, but it will eventually bite you in the arse because we are all given an consceince to splain things to us.
Yes, might makes right.
Howoever, as we can see the might of the state can make right as a nation embraces slavery for a number of years by making it legal. But since natural law is more powerful, at some point it will crush the later as we now see society completly reject it after being made illegal for over a century now. It was only a matter of time. Therefore, I don't see the need to send 600,000 men to their deaths accomplish this end, espeically when the goal was just to preserve the union. But as the good book says, the love of money is the root of all evil. The North simply did not want to give up the loot.
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that the primary purpose of the union is to compel behavior of some states according to the will of a majority of others and that the union is meaningless if members are not compelled to stay?
The fact that the Union was meant to be perpetual was mentioned several times in the body of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Article XIII:
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation ...[text shortened]... itimate power to compel him to obey its laws. This is anarchy, not a "more perfect Union".
I don't think the Founders would have agreed. Perpetual also means 'with no set time limit' not necessarily 'irreversible'.
The primary purpose of union is to achieve mutual benefits for the states: a common and united defense; also to smooth out differences among the states that could lead to friction between them, e.g. rules of interstate commerce, relations with foreign nations, currency, import and export duties, resolving problems arising from differences between state laws, etc.
So if a state were to secede, it would not profit anymore from those associations -- it has to defend and provide for itself and, importantly, there could be adverse consequences on it's trade with other states. The union is an almost perfect "free trade" and travel sphere - probably enough reason not to secede right there.
But prohibiting secession? I don't see that that was ever envisioned. I think the benefits of union were an obvious enough carrot that no stick was provided for.
25 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Brilliant! Texas can secede and the rest of the US will be better off without it.
Looks like Texas has enough votes on their secession petition such that the White House must now respond:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html?hp
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeWhy do those on the left constantly say this when they know in their heart of hearts they would support another Lincoln who would come in and kill every last man, woman, and child before setting them free?
Brilliant! Texas can secede and the rest of the US will be better off without it.
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358So they didn't mean what they said when the used term "inviolable" and "perpetual"? Got it.
So you are saying that the primary purpose of the union is to compel behavior of some states according to the will of a majority of others and that the union is meaningless if members are not compelled to stay?
I don't think the Founders would have agreed. Perpetual also means 'with no set time limit' not necessarily 'irreversible'.
The primary pu ...[text shortened]... ink the benefits of union were an obvious enough carrot that no stick was provided for.
And one more thing; the fallacy that the Union was set up for the "states'" benefit. No, it wasn't. It was sent up for the benefit of the People.
You have no actual evidence to support your "theory" about what the Framers would have believed except your feelings. I have what they actually wrote. I'd say your "feelings" are most unpersuasive.
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358The Northwest Ordinance regarding the area that would eventually be many of the MidWest States was passed on July 13, 1787 by the Congress at the same time the Constitutional Convention was meeting. It also contains numerous provisions indicating the perpetuity of the Union. To wit:
So you are saying that the primary purpose of the union is to compel behavior of some states according to the will of a majority of others and that the union is meaningless if members are not compelled to stay?
I don't think the Founders would have agreed. Perpetual also means 'with no set time limit' not necessarily 'irreversible'.
The primary pu ...[text shortened]... ink the benefits of union were an obvious enough carrot that no stick was provided for.
Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory:
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp
(Emphasis supplied)
Your "feelings" or the Founder's words; which is more persuasive as to their intent?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyYou show the confidence of one who has no need for factual support, due to your statement being only a report on the little world you have constructed in your mind.
Why do those on the left constantly say this when they know in their heart of hearts they would support another Lincoln who would come in and kill every last man, woman, and child before setting them free?
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by JS357Really? Collectivists see the need to force everyone to do their bidding, hence the word collectivist. One size fits all don't ya know.
You show the confidence of one who has no need for factual support, due to your statement being only a report on the little world you have constructed in your mind.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358The great majority in the mid 19th century saw it your way, including Abraham Lincoln. The CSA was only the latest and largest group to threaten secession, and the first to actually do it.
So you are saying that the primary purpose of the union is to compel behavior of some states according to the will of a majority of others and that the union is meaningless if members are not compelled to stay?
I don't think the Founders would have agreed. Perpetual also means 'with no set time limit' not necessarily 'irreversible'.
The primary pu ...[text shortened]... ink the benefits of union were an obvious enough carrot that no stick was provided for.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeSo you say now, but I'd bet my last dollar you would support Federal squelching of Texas Independence by force.
Brilliant! Texas can secede and the rest of the US will be better off without it.
Texas might well be better off out of the Union. Many of the landlocked States without even a major river leading to the sea would be entirely different stories.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignYour claim is nonsense; if the people had wanted to allow the CSA to secede they could have voted against the Republicans in 1862 and against Lincoln in 1864. They did not. ":The great majority" believed nothing of the sort claimed by Spruce.
The great majority in the mid 19th century saw it your way, including Abraham Lincoln. The CSA was only the latest and largest group to threaten secession, and the first to actually do it.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThe threat of the New England States to secede was not viewed as frivolous, in fact led to the War of 1812.
Your claim is nonsense; if the people had wanted to allow the CSA to secede they could have voted against the Republicans in 1862 and against Lincoln in 1864. They did not. ":The great majority" believed nothing of the sort claimed by Spruce.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are making good points. However, what about this:
The Northwest Ordinance regarding the area that would eventually be many of the MidWest States was passed on July 13, 1787 by the Congress at the same time the Constitutional Convention was meeting. It also contains numerous provisions indicating the perpetuity of the Union. To wit:
Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and r ...[text shortened]... Your "feelings" or the Founder's words; which is more persuasive as to their intent?
"The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 within the applicable Northwest Territory as constitutional in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82, 96, 97 (1851), but did not extend the Ordinance to cover the respective states once they were admitted to the Union."
Interesting, eh? That suggests that territory claimed by the US belongs to the US "in perpetuity," but as for the states that "may be formed therein"... well, we are back to the same problem.
My argument is that for a "perpetual union" to be formed by any two entities, one needs the "perpetual consent" of both. But there is nothing a democratic legislature can do that is in fact perpetual. ANY legislative act can be undone -- that is a fundamental principle of liberty.
So while a state could not join the union without the consent of itself AND the other states, what happens if one of the two sides (the state itself or, for whatever reason, the union itself) withdraws or reverses consent? In virtually every other field of human endeavor, that signifies an ending of the agreement. I know you are saying, "Everybody knew this wasn't so." But I doubt the understanding was as unanimous as you suggest.