In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

hiimterry Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 12:52 PM
"After 620,000 had perished, the issue of a state's right to secede was settled at Appomattox. If that right had existed, it no longer did." You're confusing might with right. Might does not make right in this case, it just makes for tyranny. The right still exists, just as it existed in April, 1865. The might still rests with those in control of the "Federal" government. Secession won't happen in modern times because very, very few are willing to die for liberty in this day and age.
howard194 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:13 PM
unfortunately, most historical solutions that have been decisive and final have only been made possible through war... battle.. might...

might makes the victorious side right, whether they are or not.
Ken6565 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 1:53 PM
The right to secede had not existed. Every state that ratified the Constitution ratified it including Article VI, which provides that the Constitution and laws of the United States shall be supreme over the laws of any state and that all officers elected or appointed of every state shall be sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. An oath revocable at will is no oath. If the supremacy of a law can be revoked at will, it is not supreme. There was no right to secede, in 1861 or now. And it is a strange fight for liberty that seeks to preserve slavery. Make no mistake. While the four Outer South states that seceded after Sumter did so over states' rights, the first seven did so to keep their slaves.
Corbett_ Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:06 PM
Ken -- you are historically ignorant. Abysmally so.

The Constitution does not have an anti-secession clause. And it does not somehow trump the inalienable right to self-determination spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, there were states (at least Virginia and Rhodes Island) which explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the union when they ratified the Constitution. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

And, for all you have heard about the War of Northern Aggression being about slavery, it just isn't true. Primarily, it was about taxes and Lincoln's plan to use southern taxes to pay for northern companies.
Corbett_ Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:08 PM
Actually, before any state seceded, Lincoln had a Constitutional Amendment sponsored that would have guaranteed slavery in perpetuity. Nor was it about preserving the Union because once the states had seceded, Lincoln said that they were free to do so as long as they kept paying federal taxes.

I am not saying that slavery was not an issue with some people, but it was not the big issue you seem to think it was.
howard194 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:20 PM
we DO have the right and obligation to overthrow a tyrannical government...
Corbett_ Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 1:32 PM
Secession may very well happen as the federal government loses power through bankruptcy. More and more states will come to see that they can do better without the federal government.
howard194 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 2:15 PM
right. my worry is that obamboozle and co will enlist outside help - the arab coalition of the UN? - and these outside forces will be a factor. what nations would come to the assistance of the american conservatives???
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..."

So begins the Declaration of Independence of the 13 colonies from the king and country to which they had given allegiance since the settlers first came to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.

The declaration was signed by 56 angry old white guys who had had enough of what the Cousins were doing to them. In seceding from the mother country, these patriots put their lives, fortunes and honor on the line.

Four score...