View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Fri Apr 28th, 2006 01:41 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71

  back to top


This thread is about is secession legal. Since there was no law violated it was certainly legal to secede. If something is not illegal it must be legal they are the only two choices when it comes to the law.

As to perpetuity inherently: How does the Southern State leaving the Union effect perpetualiy?  Meaning of perpetual:

1) s :occurring so frequently as to seem ceaseless or uninterrupted  2) s :uninterrupted in time and indefinitely long continuing  3) s :continuing forever or indefinitely

The Union did continue uninterrupted in time. There was still a Union after secession.

Are you refering to the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Indepenance and stated that  "One of the reasons for bearing arms was to defend against the tyranny of ones' government". Of course he would not feel that a article about secession was needed in the Constitution, all you need to do is look at what he wrote to find how he felt about changing your government. Look at the actions of the Founding Fathers who tried to change the government by negotiations finally turned to revolution to reach their goals. How anyone can state the Founding Fathers would not be in favor of secession after what they did is beyond me. It is not a logical arguement. Not only did they want secession they went to war over it. Did not Massachusetts for over decade feel it had a right to secede?

My using the 10th amendment is only to show that any powers not delegated to the Federal govt. is reserved to the States. Am I right?

Since you can not tell me how South Carolina was to apply for secession I assume you know it was not possible. The reason being secession is not in the Constitution therefore not a subject any rulings from the Federal government. They gave their reasons for leaving then voted to leave.

The Union were formed by the Articles of Confederation that was later replaced (illegally) by the Constitution, which does not change how the Union was formed: Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Is not a firm league of friendship a mere loose collection of states?

You keep bringing up the 10th amendment (not this post) as the "right" to secede. Was the 10th Amendment even mentioned in any Declarations of Secession? If not, that theory holds no water.

From the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina, the first state to secede:

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. Here is your reference to the 10th amendment.

Again if is not illegal it must be legal. Until someone shows me exactly what law was broken the Southern secession must be deemed legal. Since legal can only be applied to rules and laws.

Thank you for your comments.




Last edited on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 09:32 pm by Shadowrebel

 Close Window