Seceeding from the Union

[Rocco6196]

No please don’t regret your posting of that thread, what you did is what makes discourse and the exchange of views so important , at times I was upset to hear some opinions, other times the opinions even though I may not have agreed with them made me think about the ways I viewed situations , all persons were decent polite and at the end hopefully all took something that may have made them think, or spark some type of emotion and if you just inspire one person to try to make reasonable changes in society or view things in a more positive way, or even pray for benevolent changes , you have done a wonderful thing, I truly have seen the most evil things that man can do with no regrets or remorse, and in the middle of insanity and evil , there always was some type of hope that humanity is not all evil, the smallest thing like a soldier giving water to a person dying that minuts ago had tried to kill him, I am an optimist , I refuse to loose faith in both humanity and God, and many times I have questioned both. Be proud of your post ,

God Bless
Rocco

 

[exnihilo]

It may be inevitable, but it will not happen peaceably. Look what happened to Roman Israel when it tried to de-Romanize.

Economic collapse could lead to a relatively peaceful division. But it is true that the criminal gang that controls a territory rarely lets go of it without violence.

After the war, the Union required that all legislatures in the former Confederate states pass articles of reunion, to be re-admitted. Because of the odd status of Mo and Ky, neither were required to do it.

So, technically, I guess…(shhhhhhhhhhh. I live in Mo. )

I did not know that. As I recall Texas had within its treaty joining the US a clause that it could secede. History is fascinating.

No, we are not special, but I am optimistic enough to imagine we can do better than the Romans. We have taken personal freedom farther than they did, and have technology they never dreamed of.

They lasted 1,000 years. We have so far not had 250.

Empires lasted longer in the past. Modern technology brings about their collapse much quicker. The British Empire was greater than the American and it didn’t last all that long. It didn’t collapse completely at the end because the US supported it.

If you feel so strongly about succession have you ever considered leaving the USA, I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to stay here.

Actually you can only leave this country by permission. You are not free to leave. You can only enter other countries with permission. With the New World Order you can’t just decide to move somewhere else. If you chose to renounce citizenship you are subject to a huge tax penalty on your current wealth and event taxed on future earnings. If you do not renounce your citizenship the US claims the right to tax you on income you make anywhere in the world. It is one of a very few countries to make such an outrageous claim. At the very least the US makes it very costly to leave.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

That’s a settled question.

No it isn’t.

The last time a bunch of misguided people tried it it cost 800,000 lives and economically destroyed the third of the country that tried it for 80 years.

It was “Reconstruction” that ruined us economically, and culturally for that matter.

Don’t make us go all “Grant and Sherman” on your butts again!

I’m glad to hear you can make light of the murder of civilians and of the promise to do it again. In a more civilized era Sherman would have been hung by the neck until dead, but I guess it doesn’t matter what he did, as long as it helped the “Good Guys™”.

 

[GEddie]

No it isn’t.

It was “Reconstruction” that ruined us economically, and culturally for that matter.

I’m glad to hear you can make light of the murder of civilians and of the promise to do it again. In a more civilized era Sherman would have been hung by the neck until dead, but I guess it doesn’t matter what he did, as long as it helped the “Good Guys™”.

No, the victors do not get their necks lengthened, especially when they act under orders.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

especially when they act under orders.

Yet that’s not a factor at all when they lose. (See the Nuremberg Trials.)

Deo Vindice
Iggy

 

[GEddie]

Yet that’s not a factor at all when they lose. (See the Nuremberg Trials.)

Deo Vindice
Iggy

The only thing worse than fighting a war is losing it.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

In principle, secession could be permissible if it is either done legally, or if the federal government were to become overly oppressive and unjust.

I don’t suppose it would count as legal if it were voted and passed by our duly elected legislatures and recognized by the PotUS, would it?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m interested in reading your opinions, moral analysis I mean, on secession, as a solution/response to the crisis in the United States (its societal evils , economic failing, political attacks on religious freedom, and militarism).

Is this incompatible with the principle that we are, in general, to obey government authorities?

Like most secular, more or less morally neutral areas, it depends on your intentions. If you intend to secede for the sake of more abortions, so-called “gay marriage” or some other mortal act, then I could see how the act of seceding would be mortal.

Otherwise, if it is done to preserve the things you discuss, well, people have the right, according the Church, to be mobile for better economic conditions so I think that could work.

Just look at the Czech republic and Slovakia. They split peacefully.

 

[BobCatholic]

As the Tenth Amendment has never been formally repealed, this cannot happen.

The 10th amendment has not been repealed, it has been interpreted by courts to mean “OK, the Federal Government cannot become a totalitarian state. But the state and local governments can.”

Remember this when you read yet another story about a child’s lemonade stand is shut down for not having a license, or when NYC bans drinks above 16 ounces, or when happy meals are banned, or…

 

[starshiptrooper]

No it isn’t.

It was “Reconstruction” that ruined us economically, and culturally for that matter.

I’m glad to hear you can make light of the murder of civilians and of the promise to do it again. In a more civilized era Sherman would have been hung by the neck until dead, but I guess it doesn’t matter what he did, as long as it helped the “Good Guys™”.

You do realize Sherman was fighting against men who were waging guerilla warfare? The only practical way to defeat them is to cut off their supplies.

Speaking of people who should have been hung by the neck until dead, I would say Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were very lucky.

 

[GEddie]

Like most secular, more or less morally neutral areas, it depends on your intentions. If you intend to secede for the sake of more abortions, so-called “gay marriage” or some other mortal act, then I could see how the act of seceding would be mortal.

Otherwise, if it is done to preserve the things you discuss, well, people have the right, according the Church, to be mobile for better economic conditions so I think that could work.

Just look at the Czech republic and Slovakia. They split peacefully.

Big difference. Czechoslovakia was a creation of the victors in WW1. There was no commanding motivation to hold it together.

 

[GEddie]

You do realize Sherman was fighting against men who were waging guerilla warfare? The only practical way to defeat them is to cut off their supplies.

Speaking of people who should have been hung by the neck until dead, I would say Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were very lucky.

Not really. They knew that their former nation, now enemy, would be magnanimous in victory. Nobody in DC wanted to lengthen necks; they just wanted the country back together.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

You do realize Sherman was fighting against men who were waging guerilla warfare? The only practical way to defeat them is to cut off their supplies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman’s_March_to_the_Sea#Opposing_forces
There is no excuse.

Speaking of people who should have been hung by the neck until dead, I would say Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were very lucky.

Lee would have been glad to give his life in service to his nation, just as many of the heroes that served beneath him did. We weren’t rebelling, we succeeded by just and rightful act of our lawfully elected legislature; Lincoln on the other hand suspended Habeas corpus, and arrested legislators left right and center for disagreeing with him. (Including writing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger Taney, although that was never served.) The Idea that the American government rules by the consent of those governed ended with the War of Southern Secession.

 

[Burdensome1]

In light of that, we know that secession would start a war. Therefore, it would be immoral to do so.

It seems that double effect would apply. We do not wish to start a war, and it is not a certainty that a war will result. We merely wish to preserve ourselves and our neighbors and so we peacefully secede…there’s a reason it is still called the “War of Northern Aggression” in some places.

Not in public schools of course.

but in some places.

 

[pnewton]

Speaking of people who should have been hung by the neck until dead, I would say Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were very lucky.

At least they did not run afoul of Catholic Just War Doctrine as Sherman did.

Only one side acted in a clearly unconstitutional manner. Only one side targeted civiliam populations.

 

[pnewton]

I think the historical lesson is lost if the answer to today’s division is pulling together. We do pull together in matters of national security, which is why we are together. The Civil War occurred as a policy failure of the president who won the election. He foolishly thought that he could unite all people in areas that were not possible. What is needed today is the same thing that was needed then: tolerance of national diversity, or to use the word of Pope Benedict, subsidiarity. Return local control back to the local population and stop trying to unify everybody in the mold of the majority. For this to happen, the majority opinion has to concede for the right of the minority opinion to not only exist, but control matters in areas where they are the majority.

The electoral map has been about the same for the last three elections. we are polarizing. This polarity is increasing. This does not have to be a bad thing or a permanent trend. All that is need is that the states be given a free hand to determine their own affairs without threats of sanctions. In this country, we have forgotten what the word “state” means. It is, and was meant to be an independent governing entity. We are states, not provinces, because we were designed to operate with greater independence than we have.

If we are to ever be united again, it will have to be as the united States.

 

[GEddie]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman’s_March_to_the_Sea#Opposing_forces
There is no excuse.

Lee would have been glad to give his life in service to his nation, just as many of the heroes that served beneath him did. We weren’t rebelling, we succeeded by just and rightful act of our lawfully elected legislature; Lincoln on the other hand suspended Habeas corpus, and arrested legislators left right and center for disagreeing with him. (Including writing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger Taney, although that was never served.) The Idea that the American government rules by the consent of those governed ended with the War of Southern Secession.

The Constitution itself provides for suspension of Habeas Corpus in conditions of “rebellion or invasion”. So this was not illegal.

Under Lincoln’s belief that holding the nation together was necessary to its survival, the suppression of HC made sense. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

ICXC NIKA

 

[exnihilo]

You do realize Sherman was fighting against men who were waging guerilla warfare? The only practical way to defeat them is to cut off their supplies.

You do realize this is how the revolutionists fought? And if your ethics are true the Brits would have been justified in burning colonial America? And you do realize that Christians had heretofore consider this not moral Christian war conduct. And you do realize it was the Union carrying out a war of aggression into southern territory. When Lee went through the North he had strict orders to not allow looting and there were at least a couple soldiers executed who violated that. If all is fair in war then we’ve abandoned Christian principles.

Speaking of people who should have been hung by the neck until dead, I would say Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were very lucky.

The US had not deviated as far from the rule of law at this time. They would have actually had to have tried both. The president at that time could not secretly order the execution of men. They did jail Davis for two years, where he received correspondence from Pope Pius IX, but never brought charges. If they had he would have had his say in court and could have argued the cause of his side, secession. He did write a book to make his case since the Union was wise enough to not allow him to make a mockery of them in their courts.

Both Davis and Lee promoted reconciliation in defeat. They encouraged the South to accept their loss and work with the North as brothers. Thinking they should have hung is in line with modern American justice which is fond of cutting of its nose to spite its face and of course actual grave injustices.

 

[starshiptrooper]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman’s_March_to_the_Sea#Opposing_forces
There is no excuse.

I read the instructions he gave to his army before his march to the sea. They actually sounds pretty dang reasonable.

Lee would have been glad to give his life in service to his nation, just as many of the heroes that served beneath him did. We weren’t rebelling, we succeeded by just and rightful act of our lawfully elected legislature;

It was rebellion in response to the Constitutional election of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln on the other hand suspended Habeas corpus, and arrested legislators left right and center for disagreeing with him.

The Constitution does allow Habeas Corpus to be suspended in an emergency. When did Lincoln arrest legislators?

You do realize this is how the revolutionists fought? And if your ethics are true the Brits would have been justified in burning colonial America?

The tactics at that time involved standing in lines and shooting at each other. That does not sound like guerilla warfare to me.

And you do realize that Christians had heretofore consider this not moral Christian war conduct. And you do realize it was the Union carrying out a war of aggression into southern territory.

Who attacked whom at Fort Sumter?

Both Davis and Lee promoted reconciliation in defeat. They encouraged the South to accept their loss and work with the North as brothers.

This is a myth. I strongly suggest you read Lee Considered by Alan Nolan.

Thinking they should have hung is in line with modern American justice which is fond of cutting of its nose to spite its face and of course actual grave injustices.

No, it is in line with the traditional penalty for treason.

 

[pnewton]

.No, it is in line with the traditional penalty for treason.

Lee did not commit treason against his State of Virginia. One simply can not apply current federal sensibilities to a time when states were continued…well, states.

Still, the idea that such a person should be hung underlines the problem with the nation “coming together.” The victor always wants unity as defined by agreement with them. This is like the husband who expect his wife to mind herself and be a good wifey because he is the boss. If she gets too uppity, then she will deserve a good reminder of who is stronger. A stronger bond would be forged by allowing greater tolerance of differences.