19deac92
You are a meathead.
You do realize that is exactly what South Carolina's attitude was toward Fort Sumter, don't you?
Do States have the right to secede?
- Thread starter awaken
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
You do realize that is exactly what South Carolina's attitude was toward Fort Sumter, don't you?
The difference is Trumpworld and its inhabitants want CA to leave...well, until we do...
At least we'd be leaving for freedom not to maintain slavery.
And in few months, you'd be really wanting some fruits and nuts...
Didn't this whole right to succeed thing get settled 150 years ago.
Ca leaves, war is hell/march to the sea, maybe carve out a small state west ca, occupy/reconstruction until new political reality takes hold.
ddeacs98
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,338
- Reaction score
- 300
Cpl Crotch Rot opines
beatrix
miserable fan
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 852
- Reaction score
- 51
RaleighDevil
Well-known member
I am surprised that with the knowledge on the board no one has brought up the 1869 Supreme Court case that decided the issue of secession. I have read that some Unionists did not want the issue considered by the justices during the war because the ruling might be adverse to the war effort.
The resolution of the issue came in a roundabout due to a dispute over the sale of bonds by the Confederate government of Texas. Wikipedia has a good summation of that issue.
IIRC, the justices agreed unanimously that the Union could not be dissolved. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote the majority opinion and argued that the perpetual nature of the Union went back to the Articles of Confederaton. The dissenters argued with the majority view that the states had never left the Union and wanted the Congress to be able to administer the rebel states as conquered territories. In the view of many Radical Republicans, the rebels had committed "state suicide" and were under the jurisdiction of the national government. Of course, Lincoln never held to this view. Chase allowed that normal functions of the illegal governments, such as issuance of marriage licenses, were to be recognized due to their necessity, but all activities taken in furtherance of the war effort were null and void. As for the immediate issue, the bonds still belonged to the state of Texas because the sale was illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[7]
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.[7]
It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.[7]
The resolution of the issue came in a roundabout due to a dispute over the sale of bonds by the Confederate government of Texas. Wikipedia has a good summation of that issue.
IIRC, the justices agreed unanimously that the Union could not be dissolved. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote the majority opinion and argued that the perpetual nature of the Union went back to the Articles of Confederaton. The dissenters argued with the majority view that the states had never left the Union and wanted the Congress to be able to administer the rebel states as conquered territories. In the view of many Radical Republicans, the rebels had committed "state suicide" and were under the jurisdiction of the national government. Of course, Lincoln never held to this view. Chase allowed that normal functions of the illegal governments, such as issuance of marriage licenses, were to be recognized due to their necessity, but all activities taken in furtherance of the war effort were null and void. As for the immediate issue, the bonds still belonged to the state of Texas because the sale was illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[7]
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.[7]
It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.[7]
Last edited:
RaleighDevil
Well-known member
As for the creation of West Virginia, the federal government and Lincoln in particular have grimy hands. The recognition of the new state was in contravention of the Constitution. According to the Wikipedia article, the Supreme Court never directly ruled on the subject but did say in an 1849 case that only Congress could determine whether a state had a "republican form of government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia
States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.[68]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia
States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.[68]
Complacent Deac
Well-known member
In addition to San Diego, I recommend we keep the USC Trojan cheerleaders with the white sweaters.
beatrix
miserable fan
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 852
- Reaction score
- 51
Not after Mexico re-takes their land by force..
bernbp5
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 5,184
- Reaction score
- 257
The federal government values that land at $0 according to a new law.
BobStackFan4Life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 31,661
- Reaction score
- 1,538
Nope. They're welcome to gtfo if they don't like it.
So in this imaginary world, all of the United States military bases located in California would just automatically switch over to California. As in, there are people on those base, that are say from Missouri, that would just say "Screw it. The drones and nukes are yours." I'm guessing there would be a little bit of a fight for Californians to gain control of these drones and nukes.
DeaconSig
Well-known member
This thread is fucking stupid.
awaken
Well-known member
Exactly. As said earlier in this thread, it would be Fort Sumter all over again.
Deacs89
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,006
- Reaction score
- 225
imagine how mad they would be as we reduce epc regulations and they slowly sink into the ocean causing a mass immigration into the US.