Secession

David,
Is it absolutely necessary for you to include the entire post you are referring to? Would it be possible to refrain from doing so?

YMOS
tommy

[dave_kelly]

Tommy:

Sorry protocol from other boards as its not always easy to decipher what is replied to. Hence forth will comply.

DKelly

David
No problem. All boards are different.

YMOS
tommy

[hawglips]

I would be just as much inclined to fault the South for breaking faith with the spirit of the Constitutional Union as I would be to assert that some monolithic and careless Orwellian burocracy trod on the liberties of some doeey eyed sweet little southerners waving thier cute little flag.

This appears to be progress, I think.

I did say this: "In secession, an entire country is dismembered and it ceases to exist." but it has been a long day and I'm not sure what you are questioning?

Let me try again. The Constitution was to take effect if at least 9 of the 13 former colonies ratified it. It actually took effect with 10 I believe, with North Carolina and Rhode Island holding out for some time thereafter in a "wait and see" attitude.

So if nine States were sufficient to establish and run a union, I cannot understand how a state leaving a union of 30 or so states would somehow cause the Union to "cease to exist" anymore than adding states would cause it to cease to exist.

Hal

[dave_kelly]

Hal:
"So if nine States were sufficient to establish and run a union, I cannot understand how a state leaving a union of 30 or so states would somehow cause the Union to "cease to exist" anymore than adding states would cause it to cease to exist."

We are talking about American political schizophrenia. States Rightism vs Federalism. Personal freedom vs Patriotism. They coexist, however they can clash on personal interest. The selfish interests of the the federalist says that the system of the Union is ultimately most effective in its collective associations. The states rightist says trust no interst but your own; the affiliation of the Union only exists for the convenience of sovereign entities that predate the Constitution intheir domain.

I don't know how to reconcile what apparently is a hostile difference between competing interests. Your argument implies that the issue is the legal one of "a" states right to do as it pleases in its association to the Union. That each state has a relation to the Union which it determines according to its electorate.

There are two problems relative to the Constitution and the Civil War. First, that the conflict was not in regards to singular states rights but a regional unified secession under the banner of slaveholding interests. Such a front of commercial interests in its collective goes well beyond the bounds of simple states rights and crosses over into the realm of a very specific negative clause in the Constitution of how communities within the Union will not behave. Secondly, in the very elastic sense of citizenry envisioned by the constitution individuals have more gaurantees of personal liberty and opportunity under the collective Union than they do in state charters it has always been a point of conflict as to whether the standards of the collective should exploit their combined wealth power and common law to improve and increase the general welfare of all citizens, or whether states should refrain from meddling with local tolerances to change.

Go back to 1860 and consider your vision for the future of the United States of America. Is it to be progressive, expansive and democratic; or is it to be constrained, protective, and limited in its franchises (not to mention a self declared slave state).

[dave_kelly]

Hal:

Sorry, had another brain <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>.

While qubbling over states rights issues another consideration is that the slaveholding agenda was never simply states rightist in its context; it was in fact national, and it demanded a national policy of acceptence and protection to include coercion of abolition tendencies in the Union.

All of these debates cross over in the national dilema.

[dawna]

Hal:

I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you sooner, but I've had computer issues these past few days and since I had to pick up additional research material at the library this morning, I'm taking advantage of their internet services, with very limited time.

I do understand the point that you have raised and there's not much else I can add to David's posting.

Dawna

[hawglips]

I don't know how to reconcile what apparently is a hostile difference between competing interests. Your argument implies that the issue is the legal one of "a" states right to do as it pleases in its association to the Union. That each state has a relation to the Union which it determines according to its electorate.

David and Dawna, I'm actually not arguing any point at all. I'm just trying to understand how a state leaving a union of states somehow causes that Union of many remaining states to "cease to exist."

It appears either I am doing a poor job of asking the question, or we are engaged in a game of verbal dodgeball.

I am still hoping to get an answer on this one, as well as the question regarding any harm done to the remaining states by secession.

While qubbling over states rights issues another consideration is that the slaveholding agenda was never simply states rightist in its context; it was in fact national, and it demanded a national policy of acceptence and protection to include coercion of abolition tendencies in the Union.

If I understand your primary point correctly, I do not disagree. But I must say, that is a very interesting spin you put on it. If protecting the right to ownership of human property is "coercion of abolition tendencies," then I guess any of the Bill of Rights protecting the rights of citizens could be termed governmental "coercion."

I guess this would mean that if the government intervenes on my behalf to protect my rights to cut down the large oak trees on my property for monetary gain - against the wishes of a local and somewhat militant environmentalist group - then the government's actions protecting my property rights would be fairly termed "coercion of environmentalist tendencies," rather than protection of my property rights?

Hal


(Message edited by hawglips on September 09, 2004)

[dave_kelly]

>David and Dawna, I'm actually not arguing any point at all. I'm just trying to understand how a state leaving a union of states somehow causes that Union of many remaining states to "cease to exist." <

Sorry. On secesh boards so called "simple" questions usually are mandaly tiger traps

If the principle of a federated Union is to mean anything, then Constitutional parliamentarianism has to prevail in the Union. When it fails the game is over and it is open season on exceptions and non-compliance. One lil'ole states leads to 2, 7, 11, 50. It's like ignoring that lil'ole leak in the big'ole dam. The United States may not be perpetual; but it is going to try to be.

No doubt the maintenence of equity can get to be t*****. Possibly it can be about trees, or it could be your township claiming easement to develop the road in front of your house; or the neighborhood beautification committee telling you to fix the storm windows on your patio or face a fine for local code violation. Depends on whose ox is being gored.

Since yours is a "simple" question I'll leave it there and let your throw the next rock...

Dave

[dawna]

Hal:

I'm playing computer volleyball again so please bear with me.

If secession had been allowed, don't you think the break up of the Union would have continued, and where would it have ended? In January, 1861, the Mayor of New York City suggested that the city secede from the state of New York.

With perpetual secession, the Union of the United States would no longer exist.

Dawna