Post 1861 Peace Convention, were there any other attempts to bring seceded states back into the Union?

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Can you show me a prohibition against secession in the Constitution? Can you show me a federal statute which defines it as a criminal offense?
1. supremacy clause
2. Armed Resistance to federal law is generally a criminal offense

see this post:
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
1. supremacy clause
2. Armed Resistance to federal law is generally a criminal offense

see this post:

1. The Supremacy Clause is an affirmation of the right of secession
2. I'm sure it is. But that has nothing to do with the CSA fighting an international war of self-defense in order to repel a lawless invasion.
 
Last edited:

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a country. The US didn't become a nation until France diplomatically recognized it. Until then it was merely a rebellious colony. There is a reason why new nations but time and money into trying to be diplomatically recognized.
Leftyhunter


Better re-read it. Pay particular attention to the closing paragraph. Here's what the copy I'm reading says:

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Does your copy say something about waiting for diplomatic recognition from France before the Colonies became States and were therefore entitled "to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do"? Because mine sure doesn't.

PS- Better spread the word that America's Independence Day is actually February 6th. Everyone I know thinks it is July 4.
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
1. The Supremacy Clause is an affirmation of the right of secession
How so?
2. I'm sure it is. But that has nothing to do with the CSA fighting an international war of self-defense in order to repel a lawless invasion.
Im referring to the actual events in which a lawless rebellion defied federal authority and was therefore supressed, not whatever counter factual events you are talking about.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
How so?

Im referring to the actual events in which a lawless rebellion defied federal authority and was therefore supressed, not whatever counter factual events you are talking about.

And I'm referring to the specific historical events in which the United States lawlessly and violently invaded an independent and sovereign State, not the fictitious, fanciful, and fabricated events you are describing.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The text of the Constitution has already provided the answers to my question. And if there was a prohibition against secession in there, you would show it to me immediately. And we both know it.
If Secession was legal the states that seceded would of gotten an injunction from the courts. It also would not have been an issue to begin with.
Laws aren't based on our interpretations there based on statutory and case law.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Better re-read it. Pay particular attention to the closing paragraph. Here's what the copy I'm reading says:

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Does your copy say something about waiting for diplomatic recognition from France before the Colonies became States and were therefore entitled "to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do"? Because mine sure doesn't.

PS- Better spread the word that America's Independence Day is actually February 6th. Everyone I know thinks it is July 4.
In order to be a nation said entity must must be recognized by at least one other nation. Any break away region can write what ever they want but that doesn't make them a nation.
We have past threads where this issue was throughly debated.
Leftyhunter
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
In order to be a nation said entity must must be recognized by at least one other nation. Any break away region can write what ever they want but that doesn't make them a nation.
We have past threads where this issue was throughly debated.
Leftyhunter


Completely and utterly false. No such requirement exists. Countries extend diplomatic recognition because it is in their self-interest to do so, and for no other reason. And your obviously false claim regarding the Declaration of Independence makes a bold-faced liar out of Thomas Jefferson and the entire Continental Congress. By your theory, Jefferson should have written:

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Break Away Regions and Rebellious Colonies; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved, provided that as at least one other nation extends diplomatic recognition to them; and that as Break Away Regions and Rebellious Colonies, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do, provided that they receive diplomatic recognition by at least one other nation."

Yup, that's just how it should have been written.
 

Duncan

Guest
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
If Secession was legal the states that seceded would of gotten an injunction from the courts. It also would not have been an issue to begin with.
Laws aren't based on our interpretations there based on statutory and case law.
Leftyhunter


If secession was illegal, the Constitution would prohibit it. Or there would be federal legislation defining it as a crime. But there is neither. And if you could show me either, you would.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
If secession was illegal, the Constitution would prohibit it. Or there would be federal legislation defining it as a crime. But there is neither. And if you could show me either, you would.
Secession was illegal that's why the secession never sought judicial protection. If an action is legal there is no need for violence.
Leftyhunter
 

Similar threads

Top