Potential Civil War?

[vern_humphrey]

One thing that I wanted to know was:

I wanted to know was [SIGN]Has anyone observed anything significant over the years that could “get big” as it where?[/SIGN]

No. As passionate as I might be about some issue or other, I don’t sit around fantacizing about killing my fellow Americans *en masse *to get my way.

And I suspect the overwelming majority of Americans feel the same.

 

[master_catholic]

No. As passionate as I might be about some issue or other, I don’t sit around fantacizing about killing my fellow Americans *en masse *to get my way.

uh…vern? …that’s not what I meant…

No good American would kill Americans needlessly, I was just wondering if anyone noticed any trends about where our nation is headed. We should avoid violence as much as possible, but when it comes to fight or die then the situation will be different. There would have to be a critical reason to do so and not just simply 'cause I/we want “to get my/our way.”

And I suspect the overwelming majority of Americans feel the same.

Of course, they may not even realize any grave danger, if it should arise and if not already. So of course they’re not going to expect to fight!

You weren’t meaning to imply that I was fantacizing about killing americans “to get my way” where you? tsk tsk :tsktsk:

 

[vern_humphrey]

uh…vern? …that’s not what I meant…

No good American would kill Americans needlessly, I was just wondering if anyone noticed any trends about where our nation is headed. We should avoid violence as much as possible, but when it comes to fight or die then the situation will be different. There would have to be a critical reason to do so and not just simply 'cause I/we want “to get my/our way.”

If you’ve been following this thread, you see we have at least one participant who does.

Of course, they may not even realize any grave danger, if it should arise and if not already. So of course they’re not going to expect to fight!

You weren’t meaning to imply that I was fantacizing about killing americans “to get my way” where you? tsk tsk :tsktsk:

I was talking about the person who keeps saying that secession is grounds for war.

 

[steveandersen]

From the United States Constitution:

Since the Constitution doesn’t mention secession, it apears that power is reserved to the states.

But the IX amendment has similar language regarding the rights of the people. If the People want to maintain a Union does Amendment X give the states the rights to deny that? Clearly that is not the place to look for the solution.

Secession without consent or congress is clearly proscribed in other sectsions especially when you look at the document as a whole:
Article 1 section 8 gives the congress a host of powers that are to be informingly imposed on the nation. A state that was trying to secede would clearly be trying to step on Congress’ toes especially with regards to raising armed forces coining money and the rules regarding naturalization.

Article 1 section 8 also has the famous catch-all clause. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Which means Congress can do any fool thing it can convince us is necessary and proper.

Article 1 section 10 forbids states from entering to treaties or alliances and from controlling their borders and raising troops without consent of congress.

And, as I stated earlier, Article IV section 1 gives Congress a say over acts of the individual state legislatures and how they affect the union as a whole and the other states.

Article IV section 3 gives congress the right to protect federal property.

Article IV section 4 also gives the Congress in the say of the form of government of the individual states and gives it power to protect the public order.

Section 1 of the XIV amendment also is quite clear that the states cannot pass a law that can affect the citizenship of a resident or how he is affected by federal law (which secession would clearly do)

Beyond that, how can a man make a contract that his six-times great-granson cannot dissolve?

so your saying that a man can be protected from a document that his great grandfather wrote by citing a right reserved to the states in a document that his great grandfather wrote?

To answer your question; the when the great grandfather wrote the document he put in an amendment process so that if his great grandson wanted to change the document to fit changing times he could do so.

And finally, if some my fellow citizens should wish to secede, while I might be opposed to it, and would do all I can to dissuade them – I surely wouldn’t kill them for it!

I agree in almost all instances

BUT ultimately depends on what they were seceding over and how they had done it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But the IX amendment has similar language regarding the rights of the people. If the People want to maintain a Union does Amendment X give the states the rights to deny that? Clearly that is not the place to look for the solution.

Try reading the Constitution.

Secession without consent or congress is clearly proscribed in other sectsions especially when you look at the document as a whole:
Article 1 section 8 gives the congress a host of powers that are to be informingly imposed on the nation. A state that was trying to secede would clearly be trying to step on Congress’ toes especially with regards to raising armed forces coining money and the rules regarding naturalization.

Article 1 section 8 also has the famous catch-all clause. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Which means Congress can do any fool thing it can convince us is necessary and proper.

Did you yourself not cite Ammendment X?

Article 1 section 10 forbids states from entering to treaties or alliances and from controlling their borders and raising troops without consent of congress.

And that controls separate countries, too?

And, as I stated earlier, Article IV section 1 gives Congress a say over acts of the individual state legislatures and how they affect the union as a whole and the other states.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause forbids secession?!?!

Article IV section 3 gives congress the right to protect federal property.

The states are not “federal property.”

Article IV section 4 also gives the Congress in the say of the form of government of the individual states and gives it power to protect the public order.

No, it doesn’t – it says:

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Section 1 of the XIV amendment also is quite clear that the states cannot pass a law that can affect the citizenship of a resident or how he is affected by federal law (which secession would clearly do)

so your saying that a man can be protected from a document that his great grandfather wrote by citing a right reserved to the states in a document that his great grandfather wrote?

You love to try to put words into other people’s mouths, don’t you?

I’m saying that one generation cannot irrevovably bind all following generations.

To answer your question; the when the great grandfather wrote the document he put in an amendment process so that if his great grandson wanted to change the document to fit changing times he could do so.

And that automatically means a state can withdraw its assent to the Constitution and secede.

I agree in almost all instances

BUT ultimately depends on what they were seceding over and how they had done it.

The question is not what they were seceding over, but what a future state – such as Vermont – might secede over.

We aren’t really going to massacre the people of Vermont if they vote to secede.

 

[steveandersen]

Try reading the Constitution.

I suggest you do the same.

I have read it and I actually understand it.

Did you yourself not cite Ammendment X?

No, you did. (Try reading the posts.)
I cited amendments IX & XIV
As well as large portions of Articles I and IV including Article I section 10 which is what might have confused you.

And that controls separate countries, too?

No, if you read the constitution you would see that it refers to the states.
So if congress did not consent to secession then the seceding states aren’t countries.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause forbids secession?!?!

Have you been reading the thread?
Article IV section 1:
And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Congress may pass laws that determine how the acts of individual legislatures affect the nation as a whole.
A movement to secede would be an act of a local legislature that would affect that state, the other states, and the nation as a whole.

The states are not “federal property.”

Do try to keep up Vern. I did not say that states are federal property but they do contain federal property.
If a State wanted to secede some provisions for transfer of ownership would have to be made.

No, it doesn’t – it says:

Yes I know what it says. Did you read what you quoted? What are the implications of the words? Think about it when you’re done ROTFL.
The Federal government guarantees the form of government in the states i.e. it has a say on the internal workings of the state. More than just a say ….a guarantee is useless without the ability to enforce it.

It also has guaranteed to protect the states from invasion or domestic violence. Someone trying to set up a foreign state with (presumably) a foreign army in an existing state sounds like and invasion to me.
And what of the US citizens in a seceding state who did not wish to secede? Would the secessionist government try to enforce its authority? Would they have armed police and soldiers? Would they force compliance on US citizens? Would they remove federal officials? How? Sorta sounds like domestic violence.

My that is an insightful reply.

You love to try to put words into other people’s mouths, don’t you?

No that is more your speed.

I’m saying that one generation cannot irrevovably bind all following generations.

Yeah I know you said that.
I said that the amendment process removes the irrevocably binding part of your objection.
If later generations don’t like the rules they can change them.

And that automatically means a state can withdraw its assent to the Constitution and secede.

I believe Messers Lincoln and Davis had this discussion once before. Lincoln won.

The question is not what they were seceding over, but what a future state – such as Vermont – might secede over.

I know. “Were” was appropriate in that construction. I’m speaking of my reaction after a future event.

We aren’t really going to massacre the people of Vermont if they vote to secede.

Like I said that would depend on what they were seceding over and how they had gone about doing it.

A negotiated secession with the approval of Congress where lives and property and rights are protected might be fine.
A unilateral secession with such things as say… the seizure of federal properties; the throwing out of federal officers; or barring of the rights of those who wished to remain US citizens might be another kettle of fish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you’re headed for Vermont with a gun to kill all those eeeeeevil secessionists?

 

[SpiritOf1775]

So you’re headed for Vermont with a gun to kill all those eeeeeevil secessionists?

Secession is treason; treason carries the death penalty. Case closed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Secession is treason; treason carries the death penalty. Case closed.

From Article III:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Show me where the word “secession” appears in that section.

Now, on the other hand, fantacizing about killing other people could blossom into conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[Brendan]

The states are not “federal property.”

What is kind of interesting is that Federal Property in any secceding State would still remain property of the US Federal Government.

A great example was Ft. Sumpter. The Soverign entity of South Carolina granted control of that land to the US Federal Government (another Soverign Entity).

The US Federal Government was under no obligation to return that land upon sucession.

It was the act of attack on US Federal property that was certainly grounds for war.

It was as much grounds for war as Cuba attacking the US Naval Base in Guantanamo would be.

Texas was particularly bad. It specifically had rights of sucession in it’s entrance treaty with the US. It also DEEDED control to all ports and military installations.

But you are correct, the right of sucession would belong to the States, but that doesn’t mean that they get all their land back either

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is kind of interesting is that Federal Property in any secceding State would still remain property of the US Federal Government.

Subject to negotiations to be worked out later.

A great example was Ft. Sumpter. The Soverign entity of South Carolina granted control of that land to the US Federal Government (another Soverign Entity).

The US Federal Government was under no obligation to return that land upon sucession.

Correct – other than acting to avert conflict, they had no obligation to return Sumter.

It was the act of attack on US Federal property that was certainly grounds for war.

That’s correct – but it was a cannonade, not an act by the state legislature, that constituted an act of war.

It was as much grounds for war as Cuba attacking the US Naval Base in Guantanamo would be.

But normal acts by the Cuban government are not acts of war. As long as they don’t shoot at us, we have no cause to kill them.

Texas was particularly bad. It specifically had rights of sucession in it’s entrance treaty with the US. It also DEEDED control to all ports and military installations.

It was a muddled situation – especially since there was strong anti-secession sentiment in Texas (led by Sam Houston, himself) and a wiser course of action could have averted Texas’ decision to secede.

But you are correct, the right of sucession would belong to the States, but that doesn’t mean that they get all their land back either

Correct – such matters would be subject to negotiation later on.

But let us look at the title of this thread: It is “Potential Civil War?” Not “Refighting the Last Civil War.”

 

[steveandersen]

…

Texas was particularly bad. It specifically had rights of sucession in it’s entrance treaty with the US…

that is a myth
no such right exists

 

[vern_humphrey]

that is a myth
no such right exists

Texas has several unusual rights – including the right to keep a navy and to divide itself into five smaller states. In addition, it entered the Union via treaty – and treaties are subject to revocation.

 

[steveandersen]

From Article III:

Show me where the word “secession” appears in that section.

You’re kidding right?

Since secession without consent of Congress would be the equivalent of levying war and paying taxes to a secessionist government in open rebellion would be the same as giving aid and comfort why would you need the word secession too? That would be redundant.

Constitutions are there to set up the basic rules. Some places have developed very cumbersome constitutions (Alabamma and the propoise consittuion of the EU come to mind) but the beauty of the US federal constitution and the more successful state constitutions is their brevity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re kidding right?

Since secession without consent of Congress would be the equivalent of levying war and paying taxes to a secessionist government in open rebellion would be the same as giving aid and comfort why would you need the word secession too? That would be redundant.

Posting sophistry like the above wopuld be “the equivalent of levying war.”

Constitutions are there to set up the basic rules. Some places have developed very cumbersome constitutions (Alabamma and the propoise consittuion of the EU come to mind) but the beauty of the US federal constitution and the more successful state constitutions is their brevity.

Ahh, Steve?? The Constitution of the United States is the **oldest **written Constitution in the world – you can’t point to **later **constitutions as precedents!

 

[steveandersen]

Texas has several unusual rights – including the right to keep a navy and to divide itself into five smaller states.

Texas does not have any special rights.

The resolution on annexation clearly states that all of the defense facilities of the Republic were to be turned over to the US government. “Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.”

The division into smaller states clause is strange since Article IV section 3 of the Constitution already allowed for the creation of new states from parts of existing states. So every state (with its consent) can be made into several. The only thing the special about Texas is that annexation resolution limits it to 4 states. I imagine that was a bone thrown to northern states to assuage fears that Texas could be turned into a fist full of Rhode Island sized states that would pack the Senate for the slave states.

Probably if it was challenged it would be found to be unconstitutional.

And oddly enough territory that was claimed by the ROT is in parts of 5 other states

In addition, it entered the Union via treaty – and treaties are subject to revocation.

Texas tried to assert that right once and found that it did not exist


and it was a resolution not a treaty

Despite Texans claims to the contrary, Texas is just like every other state.

The resolution of annexation states
“Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas,……… shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States,….”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Both the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas and The Ordinance of Annexation contains this language providing the basis for forming up to four additional states from the present Texas:

New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Texas also has the right to maintain a navy.

And, like all states, it can separate from the Union if the majority of its citizens want to separate.

 

[steveandersen]

Posting sophistry like the above wopuld be “the equivalent of levying war.”

Charges of sophistry from the guy looking for a particular mention certain words in a doccument just sends the irony meter off the scales.

Ahh, Steve?? The Constitution of the United States is the **oldest **written Constitution in the world – you can’t point to **later **constitutions as precedents!

I didn’t point to them as precedents now did I?

You of course didn’t address my answer to your objection, concession accepted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Charges of sophistry from the guy looking for a particular mention certain words in a doccument just sends the irony meter off the scales.

It is the presense of particular words that make the difference between law and arbitrary dictatorships.

The Constitution clearly and narrowly defines treason – and note that none of the Confederate leaders were ever tried for treason.

I didn’t point to them as precedents now did I?

Then what relevance are they?

:
You of course didn’t address my answer to your objection, concession accepted.

You concede? Okay.

 

[steveandersen]

Both the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas and The Ordinance of Annexation contains this language providing the basis for forming up to four additional states from the present Texas:

Yes I know.
I just told you that.
How is it different from what can be done with any other state under Article IV section 3? (Other than the fact that Texas is limited to 4 while there are no limits on the other 50 states)

Texas also has the right to maintain a navy.

Every state has the right to maintain a Maritime state defense forces and or a Naval militia. IIRC 6 do so
Texas is no different than any other state

And, like all states, it can separate from the Union if the majority of its citizens want to separate.

You keep saying that but repetition does not make it so.

Texas tried to secede without the approval of Congress and that attempt failed.