Started By
Message

re: If secession was legal then what right did the North have to keep the South in the USA?

Posted on 8/18/17 at 11:09 am to
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48630 posts
Posted on 8/18/17 at 11:09 am to
Walt, if a group of states or people want to secede from the Union of the USA, I don't believe that they will be controlled by the question of whether or not it is "legal" to do so.

If you are determined to dissolve the Union, whether or not said Union thinks it's legal to do so isn't going to control one's determination to secede.

Secession was a big "frick You" to the USA. The people who seceded weren't interested in the USA's tender opinion on whether or not the frick You was legal.

So, IMHO, the legality question is interesting but not a completely important one. In any event, because the USA put no Confederate on trial for Treason, I think that the question answers itself -- NO INTENT TO COMMIT TREASON underscored by the USA's exercise of prosecutorial discretion DECLINING the option to conduct trials for Treason.

NO INTENT, Walt. It's the same defense that Flakey Comey cited for Hillary the Terrible.

Ironic, No?



This post was edited on 8/18/17 at 11:10 am
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 8/18/17 at 11:53 am to
quote:

Walt, if a group of states or people want to secede from the Union of the USA, I don't believe that they will be controlled by the question of whether or not it is "legal" to do so.


"It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully , withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice."

- A. Lincoln 7/4/61
This post was edited on 8/18/17 at 11:54 am
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 8/18/17 at 11:59 am to
quote:

So, IMHO, the legality question is interesting but not a completely important one.



The neo-reb apologists to this day want to say secession was legal under U.S. law.

It was not legal. This is borne out in the Prize Cases from 1863 and Texas v. White in 1869.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram