Secession

[eopfrank]

Hal,

We have defended Taiwan's right to operate separately from China

Sure... but Taiwan wanted to leave a country that is communist; that does not protect its citizen's rights... If it weren't for the united State's support for them(and other's support) China would have took care of that long ago.

If England and france would have backed the south, they prbaby would have won.

Also, what was their reason- what were the people of the south leaving and what were they looking to create? They were leaving a nation that protected their rights, that alowed them to prosper, that allowed them them speak out against their gvernment and allowed them to practice what ever religion they desired. They were looking to create a nation that promised the same- except allowing slavery. To leave the Union was a grave mistake by the southerners; it wasn't worth it to them to fight. as Lincoln said, "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it".

[hawglips]

Georgiana: ...521,915 Americans that lost their lives during the first and second world wars – might challenge the notion of these countries “living peacefully side by side”.

I understand your point. But I thought both of the above mentioned conflicts were both due to aggression against another State's sovereignty, not secession or balkanization? Simplistically speaking, it seems to me the problem is not one of balkanization, but of imperialism.

Georgiana, do you consider the balkanization of the former Soviet Union to be a bad thing?

Hal

[hawglips]

Frank: Sure... but Taiwan wanted to leave a country that is communist; that does not protect its citizen's rights... If it weren't for the united State's support for them(and other's support) China would have took care of that long ago.

Frank, do you feel that Taiwan has the right to declare independence from China and join the nations of the world in full fellowship? Or is China right to invade Taiwan in the event they declare independence, as China has repeatedly warned they will do?

It's interesting to note that China holds up Abraham Lincoln as the model for forcing unity - Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, on Taiwan, at a news conference with President Clinton, 8 April 1999: “Abraham Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States…resorted to the use of force…so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example.”

Hal


(Message edited by hawglips on September 02, 2004)

[hawglips]

"...as Lincoln said, "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it".

Lincoln was very good at getting away with pure BS.

Here's the solemn oath he took. You will note his intentional distortion immediately, I am sure.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hal

[dave_kelly]

>"...as Lincoln said, "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it".

Lincoln was very good at getting away with pure BS.

Here's the solemn oath he took. You will note his intentional distortion immediately, I am sure.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hal <

Hi. Georgianna asked me to pay a visit as Unionblue is vacationing and/or hors de combat.

We have recently shared a canteen in a similar discussion elsewhere.

As to Lincoln's BS I might mention it is consistent with the BS of every strong national executive since G Washington responded to the Whiskey Rebellion, and that the Congress of the United States saw fit to reinforce the executives military powers in the Militia Acts of 1796 which empowered the Commander in Chief to shoot first and ask permission later, when Congress was not in session.

Lincoln's oath as national executive was to all the Constitution, not the the cozey bits, like the "reserve clauses" of the tenth ammendment. Rebels seem not to like to recall that the Constitution does stipulate that any conspiracy against national interest not sanctioned by the Congress of the United States is unconstitutional, and that all appointed officers of the law are foresworn to protect the national constitution, and implicitly, THE UNION.

The "North" and "South" have absolutely nothing to do with the federated Republic as realized in the Constitution. They are the sort of factional constructs which Washington deprecated in his farewell address.

I would challenge anyone declaring secession to be right and reasonable to the political philosophy of the Republic to revisit Jefferson and Madisons writings on the matter and consider how ineffable to the Constitution they considered the federated Union to the welfare and success of the nation, individually and as a whole commonwealth.

Lincoln, in other words, was right.

Well Mr Kelly, welcome to the boards. I expect you will get quite a warm welcome from all. Perhaps in more ways that one.

Why don't you head on over to the New Recruits Meet &amp; Greet thread and introduce yourself.

YMOS
tommy

[georgiana]

Welcome, Dave.

Georgiana, do you consider the balkanization of the former Soviet Union to be a bad thing?

I think it’s too soon to tell, Hal, at least from the perspective of the people of the former Soviet Union. As a citizen of this country, I consider it a “good thing”, just as I am sure other nations would have looked favorably on the break-up of the U.S during the nineteenth century. The recent elections in Chechnya weren’t terribly encouraging. There are talks of reunification, so I think a lot remains to be seen.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/cpress/20040824/ca_pr_on_wo/russia_geor gia_1

I wouldn’t wish any of it on the United States. I tend to see separatism and/or micro-nationalism as a significant source of tension in the world today.

David,
In regards to the presidential oath implicitly implying that Constitution AND the Union were one and the same, I'd say that the South's beliefs and actions would imply otherwise.

YMOS
tommy

[dave_kelly]

>David,
In regards to the presidential oath implicitly implying that Constitution AND the Union were one and the same, I'd say that the South's beliefs and actions would imply otherwise.

YMOS
tommy<

I don't believe that interests seperate to the Constitutional construct imply anything to the nature of United States or its government. That southern interests would declare they could turn their backs on the Union was no more risable than New England interests trying to refuse participation in the War of 1812; for which Southern and Western interests threatened reprisals if New England drug her feet.

The specific powers granted to the national government were limited in scope, but absolute where granted. The common wealth of the Union in its total domain and in the relationships of states and territories was absolute.

SC may claim to secede, but since SC cannot divest itself of the historic domain of the Union how does it propose to reconcile itself to US national interests? It can't. So SC calls on it's neighbors to join it in mutual protection. That call, and the use of secession commisioners to propogate the message contravenes the Constitution.

So who is and who isn't following the law of the land?

Better to just admit that secession is just good ole rebellion and stop hiding behind treaties; don't work anyway.

David,

Long I have suspected Unionblue and Georgiana of being tight on other boards. I see the Higher-Latitude-Placed-Homo-Sapiens have been recruiting. Well. More the merrier. We Southerners have long since grown to being outnumbered. Lots of 'hot button' words. Rebels, Challenge, Hiding, and Ineffable. I suspect you will indeed find several Rebels here that will rise to many challenges and not one that will hide. Including me. But bear in mind we have argued these points for years. Neither side has given up to defeat. Although on rare occasions, you will find we agree....rare as in Blue Moon rare.


Your 'challenge' we revisit Jefferson and Madison made me do just that.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. (Federalist Paper 45)

Those Constitutional powers do not include stopping a state from leaving the Union. I have read it through and never found it written.
Those indefinite powers that remain un-named that belong to the states include the Right to leave. That is not ineffable. Especially it includes the right to not be murdered and dozens of decades of depravation for exercising those rights.

“Domain of the Union?” That denotes ownership. My point often on these boards. The states have no rights now. They are slaves. Lincoln freed a race and enslaved a nation.

YMOS
tommy