quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Just read Cliffw's post from Texas above.

Fail.
I never called you a name in my post above, .

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I think it has a LOT to do with the question at hand. But since I'm not a "conservative", my opinion doesn't matter. To you, and to the others who think they 'own' Cliff Pennocks forum. Just read Cliffw's post from Texas above. Its bedtime on the East Coast. Have a ball, guys.

Re-read the op and see if you still think you have a valid point. Something specific was asked for in that opening post.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Its bedtime on the East Coast.

And, when you get up, you will still be Neptune, .

"I cannot regard the annexation of Texas to the American Union in any other light than as the grave of all her hopes of happiness and greatness.”

And reflect for a moment on the words of a state representative named Guy Bryan, who during the Santa Fe fight of 1850 expressed a hostility toward Washington that is still alive: “Let a dark line be drawn between the State and the Republic of Texas; all the splendors which encircle the Lone Star belong to the past; nothing will be left to the present but dishonor and shame and base submission.”

Base submission--sounds so familar.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: "I cannot regard the annexation of Texas to the American Union in any other light than as the grave of all her hopes of happiness and greatness.” And reflect for a moment on the words of a state representative named Guy Bryan, who during the Santa Fe fight of 1850 expressed a hostility toward Washington that is still alive: “Let a dark line be drawn between the State and the Republic of Texas; all the splendors which encircle the Lone Star belong to the past; nothing will be left to the present but dishonor and shame and base submission.” Base submission--sounds so familar.

Semi- sentient quotes from the Former Governor of the 'Republic of Texas':

quote "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson "I think I was unprepared for war." –on the biggest regret of his presidency, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008 "They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

Maybe George W. Bush could be the president of the "New Republic of Texansas."
I heard that He's looking for a job.

Yeah, Texans are so good at picking leaders .
Good luck and best wishes, ya'll.

http://offtheshelf.nowis.com/index.cfm?ID=10

You guys just don't know how lucky you are to be a part of the USA.
Millions of people all over the world spend their entire savings and risk their lives just to to have a CHANCE to live your life.
Go ahead, bail out and give them the chance to work here.

Maybe they'll appreciate it.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-07-2009).]

And, you wonder why people revert to calling you names. You may stop just short of the same--most of the time,---but you never hesitate to enter every thread you can and interject as much venom as possible.

You've become a very small person.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: And, you wonder why people revert to calling you names. You may stop just short of the same--most of the time,---but you never hesitate to enter every thread you can and interject as much venom as possible. You've become a very small person.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: You guys just don't know how lucky you are to be a part of the USA. Millions of people all over the world spend their entire savings and risk their lives just to to have a CHANCE to live your life. Go ahead, bail out and give them the chance to work here. Maybe they'll appreciate it.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-07-2009).]

Not about "us" going anywhere. We'll still be right where we physically are now.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: You guys just don't know how lucky you are to be a part of the USA. Millions of people all over the world spend their entire savings and risk their lives just to to have a CHANCE to live your life. Go ahead, bail out and give them the chance to work here. Maybe they'll appreciate it.

From now on I promise I'll try to dumb the questions down so they point of them doesn't go right over your head. Because I feel bad that you've missed it, I'll quickly run through it again.

This is not directed at any particular party, but it's still marked as political.

This means that I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, independent, or anything else. It was marked political because it's a political question.

As you understand it, believe it, whatever, just like the title says, Do the individual states have the right to secede from the United States?

I phrased this very specifically because as others that actually tried to discuss the quesion have said, there could be two things here, a legal right as granted in the constitution or elsewhere and a moral right that comes from some higher power. I phrased it that way to see if people would make the distinction.

If you had a resolution on the ballot and it was passed, giving your governor the right to demand your state's independence if conditions x, y, and z are met, and those things happen, do you believe the state has the right to secede?

Some states already HAVE passed resolutions like this, and they're not all conservative states. One example that nearly passed on was Oregon. It says the if this, this, and this should happen, we have the right to remove ourselves from the union. I used that because it's a real example of what's could happen.

I'd like to hear a number of viewpoints on both sides.

I meant that. I'd be more than happy to hear your opinion on if the states have the right, legal or otherwise, to secede. Somehow, though, because *I* asked the question, you feel the need to come in the thread and piss on it until nobody else posts. Well done. Way to help out reasonable political discussion.

John Stricker

It won't matter what you do, John. Neptune trolls because he likes the attention.
You'll notice he never has a straight answer to any question. He only posts to stir up an argument and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It won't matter what you do, John. Neptune trolls because he likes the attention. You'll notice he never has a straight answer to any question. He only posts to stir up an argument and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Yeah but I like it. It makes him look like a fool. I give him more credit than that but it sure is funny. I think of him as the PFF court jester. He does a good job of making me believe he actually is stupid. Ignorant ? No. I am ignorant in many things but can understand reason.

Does the Declaration of Independence constitute " law", or is it simply the founding document of the United States?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The original thirteen colonies came to a place where they found living under the British government to be insufferable. They asked repeatedly for relief, and felt so strongly about the right of citizens to ask for relief that they guaranteed this in the Constitution:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the Crown repeatedly refused their requests, they saw no other course than to declare their independence from Great Britain.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence believed governments existed to protect the rights of a citizen, which came about simply by birth.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

When any government fails to meet its responsibility to guarantee individual rights, the people have the right to change that government.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

. . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

When a government stops defending the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, and especially when a government defends the rights of the collective against the rights of an individual, the citizenry not only has the right but also the responsibility to change that government. Therefore, a state that will guarantee the rights of the individual citizen when the federal government will not has the right to secede from the oppressive union.

The question " How will this work out?" is another matter entirely.

Note: underline for emphasis is mine

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Does the Declaration of Independence constitute " law", or is it simply the founding document of the United States? When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The original thirteen colonies came to a place where they found living under the British government to be insufferable. They asked repeatedly for relief, and felt so strongly about the right of citizens to ask for relief that they guaranteed this in the Constitution: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. When the Crown repeatedly refused their requests, they saw no other course than to declare their independence from Great Britain. The authors of the Declaration of Independence believed governments existed to protect the rights of a citizen, which came about simply by birth. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. When any government fails to meet its responsibility to guarantee individual rights, the people have the right to change that government. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. When a government stops defending the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, and especially when a government defends the rights of the collective against the rights of an individual, the citizenry not only has the right but also the responsibility to change that government. Therefore, a state that will guarantee the rights of the individual citizen when the federal government will not has the right to secede from the oppressive union. The question " How will this work out?" is another matter entirely. Note: underline for emphasis is mine

Mike,
Some very appropriate points in my opinion. I agree with others that the constitution does not address secession from the union. I believe this was absolutely discussed by our founders and was intentionally not addressed. Including such options in the constitution would have only weakened the united group as a whole and it was of the highest priority that they all be united in the struggle for independence. The driving force being the significant dvision between the rulers and the people being ruled. But, if one looks at the prior documents such as the Declaration of Independence, one sees a similarity of those strongly in support of a different and more representative government.

When you look at this country geography and add in the attitudes held within those areas, Neptunes map may not be that far off. Though I suspect that several states within his "Pacifica" would want to join up with the "Redneckistan" he shows. How will this work out? I believe the results would depend on a number of factors but, there is no doubt that "Redneckistan" could easily stand alone economically and would probably end up supporting the other two republics. Put another way, they would need Redneckistan much more than Redneckistan would need them. I'm thinking Disney would probably not be a real important assest



Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-09-2009).]

WV would probably end up in Redneckistan.

Mike,

I don't remember the case anymore, but the SCOTUS ruled several years ago that the Declaration was NOT law that is was, instead, a statement of principles and the notice served on the British Empire of the colonies' secession. That said, it has been used by SCOTUS as a reference when interpreting what the Constitution "means" in decisions.

Just from my personal reading of the Federalist Papers and my understanding of the Constitution and the Declaration, I think the founding fathers added the 10th amendment not just to limit the govenrment, but to give the people LEGAL RIGHT to overthrow, or detach themselves from the government if it no longer served the people.

That opinion, and 50 cents, still won't buy you a cup of coffee, though.

It's interesting to go back and read about the beginnings of the Civil War. Most NORTHERN papers wrote editorially that the south DID have the right to secede. Most people in the north didn't really care one way or another if the South Seceded, from what I read. The government was the one, not the people, that felt it necessary to bring the south back in, by force if required, not the people. When the shooting started at Fort Sumner, it was portrayed in the northern papers as an act of war by the south when, in fact, the presence and resupply of troops at Fort Sumner in southern territory was actually an act of war that came first.

So many people were taught in school that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves when in fact, that was only one component of the south's secession. There were many northern slaveholders as well and many of them didn't want to give up their cheap labor either.

We complain that the schools don't teach history any longer. IMHO, they haven't taught ACCURATE history for a long, long time, mostly beginning when the federal government got involved with laying down rules for what should be taught and approving texts back in the depression era. Yes, I'm one that believes our kids are being indoctrinated to a certain point of view today, I just don't think it's anything new.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Does the Declaration of Independence constitute " law", or is it simply the founding document of the United States? When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The original thirteen colonies came to a place where they found living under the British government to be insufferable. They asked repeatedly for relief, and felt so strongly about the right of citizens to ask for relief that they guaranteed this in the Constitution: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. When the Crown repeatedly refused their requests, they saw no other course than to declare their independence from Great Britain. The authors of the Declaration of Independence believed governments existed to protect the rights of a citizen, which came about simply by birth. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. When any government fails to meet its responsibility to guarantee individual rights, the people have the right to change that government. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. When a government stops defending the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, and especially when a government defends the rights of the collective against the rights of an individual, the citizenry not only has the right but also the responsibility to change that government. Therefore, a state that will guarantee the rights of the individual citizen when the federal government will not has the right to secede from the oppressive union. The question " How will this work out?" is another matter entirely. Note: underline for emphasis is mine

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 10-09-2009).]

John, do I get credit for thoughtful analysis anyway?

Silly question. Of course you do!

Anyone who actually THOUGHT about the question asked and gave a thoughtful response gets my full faith and credit.

And that's as solid as the US Dollar.

No, Really, I'm not joking.



John Stricker

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: John, do I get credit for thoughtful analysis anyway?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Anyone who actually THOUGHT about the question asked and gave a thoughtful response gets my full faith and credit. And that's as solid as the US Dollar. No, Really, I'm not joking.

Gosh, I dunn know. ?????
If your full faith and credit is only as solid as a dollar, .... I have over estimated you.
I believe in you more than I do the dollar.
?????????

I know it's kind of a dead thread, but I thought I'd add this...

Third sentence in the introduction of my history text:
"Lincoln did not accept the notion that the southern states had seceded legally because he believed secession was not constitutionally possible."

... and they say history repeats itself

What Lincoln BELIEVED is irrelevant. He also believed he could suspend habeas corpus. The Supreme Court at that time, supposedly THE highest authority on interpreting the Constitution, disagreed. Lincoln didn't care and did it anyway.

I'm glad you posted that, though, because it does add a new dimension. We think of Lincoln as a Hero and savior of the nation, yet much of what he did was arguably illegal and unconstitutional, so did he actually save the nation or pervert it? That's something we should all think about.

There is no question that most nations try to maintain control over their territories. When the original colonies broke away from England, many were hanged for sedition. Many. None were every legally tried or punished for that during the civil war. Why is that, do you think?

My opinion is that it was because had they BEEN tried, it would have been found that secession by the states, and remember the founding fathers were meticulously careful about preserving and increasing the rights of the states in the Constitution, was, actually, legal and that would have opened the door to the fact that the North actually invaded a sovereign nation illegally.

I'd be curious to know what your history teacher has to say about that. I'm a student of history but I'm certainly not a historian. I have discussed this WITH historians though, and what I've learned about the Civil War from them has certainly opened my eyes to the fact that when the southerners refer to the war as the "Northern War of Aggression", some of them to this day, they are far less wrong than the history books would have you believe.

Oh, and don't for a minute think it was all about slavery either. That was certainly a part, but again, not as big a part as many of the history books paint it.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I know it's kind of a dead thread, but I thought I'd add this... Third sentence in the introduction of my history text: "Lincoln did not accept the notion that the southern states had seceded legally because he believed secession was not constitutionally possible." ... and they say history repeats itself

quote Originally posted by jstricker: What Lincoln BELIEVED is irrelevant. He also believed he could suspend habeas corpus. The Supreme Court at that time, supposedly THE highest authority on interpreting the Constitution, disagreed. Lincoln didn't care and did it anyway. I'm glad you posted that, though, because it does add a new dimension. We think of Lincoln as a Hero and savior of the nation, yet much of what he did was arguably illegal and unconstitutional, so did he actually save the nation or pervert it? That's something we should all think about. There is no question that most nations try to maintain control over their territories. When the original colonies broke away from England, many were hanged for sedition. Many. None were every legally tried or punished for that during the civil war. Why is that, do you think? My opinion is that it was because had they BEEN tried, it would have been found that secession by the states, and remember the founding fathers were meticulously careful about preserving and increasing the rights of the states in the Constitution, was, actually, legal and that would have opened the door to the fact that the North actually invaded a sovereign nation illegally. I'd be curious to know what your history teacher has to say about that. I'm a student of history but I'm certainly not a historian. I have discussed this WITH historians though, and what I've learned about the Civil War from them has certainly opened my eyes to the fact that when the southerners refer to the war as the "Northern War of Aggression", some of them to this day, they are far less wrong than the history books would have you believe. Oh, and don't for a minute think it was all about slavery either. That was certainly a part, but again, not as big a part as many of the history books paint it. John Stricker

I wouldn't consider what the president at the time believed to be irrelevant. It certainly is relevant because it was their justification for aggression. That same justification could be used again based on the positive outcome of the Civil War. As you pointed out, varying interpretations of our constitution are the deciding factor in many circumstances. But, there will be no supreme court ruling prior to aggression, they'll just invade.

It could be argued that none were tried for treason after the Civil War because President Lincoln nor President Johnson believed the southern states had legally been out of the Union, therefore their relationship with the federal government was intact. Had they believed differently or agreed with many of the northern Republican states, there may have been some hangings. That's another reason for relevancy.

Other than the slavery issue, which was actually a side issue of the civil war, there's no standing proof that anything positive came out of the civil war--other than maintaining a much bigger tax base for the federal govt in Washington. Ensuring a contunued union, gained solely on the results of the civil war--in itself, cannot be said to be an absolute positive, since there is nothing to compare the end result against.

IOW, how can one say absolutely, it worked out for the best?

Did the breakup of the British Empire work out as a negative?

Has the breakup of the USSR, been a negative?

Virtually every nation state in the world today, belonged at one time to someone else--including the USA.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Other than the slavery issue, which was actually a side issue of the civil war, there's no standing proof that anything positive came out of the civil war--

I used positive in the context of: The North set out to invade the South, win the war, and unite the country again. Which they did. They set a goal, met that goal, that's a positive outcome.

I figured it would be debated, which is why I put it in italics, when really I should have been more clear.

I didn't see any italics, but I did see that you quoted your history book. Not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want to make sure I'm understanding which part you're talking about. That said, let's discuss a couple of things.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I used positive in the context of: The North set out to invade the South, win the war, and unite the country again. Which they did. They set a goal, met that goal, that's a positive outcome. I figured it would be debated, which is why I put it in italics, when really I should have been more clear.

I wouldn't consider what the president at the time believed to be irrelevant. It certainly is relevant because it was their justification for aggression. That same justification could be used again based on the positive outcome of the Civil War. As you pointed out, varying interpretations of our constitution are the deciding factor in many circumstances. But, there will be no supreme court ruling prior to aggression, they'll just invade.


Hey! there are those italics!

OK, I do consider it to be irrelevant and here's why. Our Constitution is written to make the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES the body that decides what is, and is not, a Constitutional act of the government. Now you're correct in that the President can order the troops to war, and the fighting can be going on for a while, but if it's ruled as unconstitutional and the President proceeds on that course, it is most definitely an impeachable offense as a crime against the Constitution. The relevance of the President's beliefs only matters until the Supreme Court rules if those beliefs are challenged.

That is, of course, if we're a nation of laws. If we're not, then I contend the states not only have the right, but the DUTY to secede because the Government has most definitely broken it's compact with the states.

It could be argued that none were tried for treason after the Civil War because President Lincoln nor President Johnson believed the southern states had legally been out of the Union, therefore their relationship with the federal government was intact. Had they believed differently or agreed with many of the northern Republican states, there may have been some hangings. That's another reason for relevancy.

That argument doesn't make sense. If they honestly thought that they had never legally been out of the Union, then by taking up arms against the Union Army they most definitely were guilty of treason and should have been hanged, or shot, or both. Remember, this was a time where hangings and firing squads actually DID happen and without 20 years of appeals. No, you have to think back to the timeline.

The south secedes and forms it's own confereracy.
The north holds positions in the south and they were ordered out by the south.
Instead of leaving, Lincoln re-supplies and sends reinforcements in. Fort Sumter is the one we always here about, but it was just one of many.
The south, after warning several times this wouldn't be tolerated, finally fire on a northern ship that was re-supplying Ft Sumter.
Lincoln does several things. He closes down newspapers that were printing negative articles about him and the war. He suspends habeas corpus. He domiciles union troops in private residences, especially in the south. All things prohibited by the Constitution.
This ticks a lot of people, north and south, off big time. They go to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court says "Hey, Abe, these guys got a point, you can't do that crap!"
Lincoln says "oh yeah? Just watch me, and if you don't like it I'll disband you too!"
5 years, over 10,000 battles, and over 1,000,000 dead later, the south finally surrendered. (considering they were outgunned 2:1 and had no manufacturing base, that it took five years to do this gives one an idea of the determination of the South and how morally "right" they felt their cause was)
So, after the war, and things start getting back to normal at least in the north, Lincoln is facing a problem. His generals have devastated the south. Cotton production, for instance was reduced to less than 7% of pre-war levels. The poverty and destitution of the south was unimaginable to most of us, and many in the north weren't satisfied with just having won, they wanted to punish as well. The south in many ways didn't even really begin to recover for 40 years, but I digress, back to Lincoln's problem.
He had a lot of southern commanders and officers that northern families wanted retribution from. Lincoln knew that if he charged them wtih rebellion, treason, sedition, or some other crime that would satisfy the northern mob, he would have to abide by the rule of law now that there was no war to claim exceptional circumstance.
He had also, just a few years earlier, completely ticked off a Supreme Court and threatened to dissolve them until after the war.
Lincoln could NOT let those trials go before the Supreme Court. Period. So he did the only thing he could.
Lincoln granted blanket pardons for any southern soldier, including generals, that returned their allegiance to the union. More than one southern soldier spat those words out in defeat, just so they could go back home and if we're going to be perfectly honest, it saved Lincoln's butt as much as it did the soldiers he pardoned.

When I was in school we learned a LOT about the civil war in Kansas History. Kansas was unique in that it was granted statehood as a "free state" just over a month before Lincoln was inaugurated and many thought it was only allowed to become a state to put pressure on Missouri, which was a state that allowed slavery but fought on the Union side, to keep it from switching sides as Virginia had done. This did not go over well, though, because the borders of Missouri and Kansas were in dispute an brutal, guerilla wars were fought with neither side showing any compassion or concern. There was, for a time before statehood, two governments in Kansas. One an abolitionist government that was recognized in the Washington and another "shadow" government run out of Topeka that they eventually sent troops from the north to break up because it was becoming more powerful than the "legitimate" government.

If Missouri raiders (Ruffians they were called) found Kansas settlers,who were for the most part anti-slavery, they killed them and often mutilated the bodies. OTOH, Kansas raiders were equally ruthless against Missouri slaveholders. There was a drawing of John Brown (not a photograph) leading a raid on his horse. He supposedly had a water bag that he had covered with skin of a woman's breast that he had tanned and stretched over the bag. Spooky stuff.

Because the history of KS all really tied into the history of the civil war, we covered it heavily when I was in grade school back in the '60's. When Chris was in grade school in the '80's Kansas history was hardly mentioned.

More civil war BS that Lincoln and his cohorts did.

Lincoln swore in his inaugural address that he had no intention of invading southern territory, nor did he have any intention of ending slavery where it existed, but he wouldn't allow free states to become slave states and new states wouldn't be allowed to be slave states. Within 6 months he had invaded southern territory and blockaded southern ports and within 19 months he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves. Not to promote the practice of slavery, but Lincoln was a bald face liar.

Virginia seceded from the union with the south but 48 counties voted to form a new state that later became west virginia and was admitted to the union, while virginia remained a part of the confederacy. Big deal, you say? Yes, it is.

Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution says:

"New 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;"

One more way Lincoln and his Republican dominated Congress directly violated the Constitution of the United States. They used the reasoning that since it had seceded, Virginia was no longer really a state, yet the entire premise of the war was based on the idea that any secession was "legally void", yet to admit West Virginia to the union he had to say that Virginia was no longer a state. Kind of a "have your cake and eat it too" philosophy.

Lincoln violated the Constitution in so many ways it was truly ridiculous. Yes, he won the war. Yes he won freedom for the slaves. The question is, did the ends justify the means if it means we sacrifice the rule of law? From that time on, until the Vietnam era, the President was virtually unquestioned and unchallenged. There was no check or balance and it only came back with rioting in the streets in the '60's.

Read. Learn. Think. Think long and hard about what you're taught in school because unless you take it on yourself to look at more than one side, you're probably missing at least 70% of the story, no matter which side you're on.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK John. The answer is NO. Doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say :"One Nation.....indivisible......forever?" Unless you farmers pick up guns and somehow manage to defeat the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard. And the "friendly forces" of the remaining US Allies. Better?

I didn't read the whole thread (don't have time right now), but I would like to point out that the Pledge is not in the Constitution nor does the Constitution reference one. The Pledge is something we have our kids recite in school but otherwise has no authority. It is merely a simbol of solidarity. A solidarity we have begun to lose when we gave up the melting pot and switched to multiculturalism. You can't be one when you think of yourself as seperate.

To answer the question. Yes we as states or the individual have the right to secede. The question is can you keep it after you have done so? That one is harder.