Started By
Message

re: Andrew Jackson's letter on Secession

Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:20 pm to
Posted by Yaz 8
Member since Jun 2020
1324 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:20 pm to
He should be glad the founding fathers felt it was okay to replace a government that no longer represented their interests. I will never be convinced the South was wrong in their contention that they had the right to secede.
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
3350 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:33 pm to
quote:

To deny it means one has to believe that the ratifiers willingly signed a document so permanent and irrevocable it could not be revoked even through democratic means.

Well, they did sign the Articles of Confederation first, passed in 1777 and ratified in 1781,which stated:

" To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

So, obviously, they weren't opposed to the idea.

In fact, the reason they scrapped the original Articles was because the federal government was too weak.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
37162 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:39 pm to
quote:

MAGA will not like this they are already ready to succeed

Does your brain function consistently within normal ranges?
Posted by Buck_Rogers
Member since Jul 2013
2064 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:43 pm to
Joining the union is like joining a mob.
Posted by AlonsoWDC
Memphis, where it ain't Ten-a-Key
Member since Aug 2014
9258 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

This. The Democrats make the Nazis look like amateurs over their history. They are up there with the CCP in terms of immiserating humanity over almost 200 years. The party of slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment. The list goes on. If the press had any sense of shame, this party would have died in the Civil Rights Era.




It did die in the Civil Rights era, dude.
Posted by CSATiger
The Battlefield
Member since Aug 2010
6769 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:55 pm to
quote:

n and perpetual Union


which they disbanded, or seceded from, and did not include that language for the new government they formed under the Constitution
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:56 pm to
It took a president of Scottish ancestry to quell the always rebellious Scottish settlers in the Carolinas.
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
56601 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:57 pm to
They did.

The Dems or slavers were about exploitation. The Nazis were about extermination. Big difference
Posted by liz18lsu
Naples, FL
Member since Feb 2009
17885 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

Fat and Happy


quote:

he southern states succeeded due to states rights.


It's "seceded". The South seceded from the Union, allowed by the Constitution.
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
3350 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 10:11 pm to
You missed the point. The cock implied they wouldn't sign on to a perpetual union, but they did.

And they didn't disband or secede from the union, they just reformed the government to give it more power. The union remained, the government changed.
Posted by Decisions
Member since Mar 2015
1585 posts
Posted on 7/4/25 at 10:12 pm to
Like it or not all rights descend from the power to enforce them. In this case the South couldn’t follow through, but they were right by the letter of the law to do what they did, IMO.
Posted by Mr. Misanthrope
Cloud 8
Member since Nov 2012
6324 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 12:33 am to
The matter has been tested and decided. A terrible Civil War decided it and a centralized federal authority was created and enforced by might of arms against states who held an idea of government and Democracy that remained Jeffersonian.
quote:


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Treaty of Paris in 1783 echoed this understanding of the rights of the individual colonies as independent states.
quote:


Article 1st.
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New-Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode-Island & Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia, to be free sovereign & Independent States; that he Treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors relinquishes all Claims to the Government Propriety and Territorial Rights of the same & every Part thereof.
In Article 5 of the Treaty further recognized the individual colonies’ status as sovereign by entreating Congress to persuade the individual state legislatures to treat fairly British subjects in matters of property rights.
quote:


ARTICLE V.
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States: And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavours to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail.


Given Andrew Jackson’s history vis a vis slavery, his position on South Carolina’s rights to secede are more about his different understanding of history and our Founding Fathers’ original intents than the institution of slavery. Much the same can be said of Abraham Lincoln as well.

Posted by CSATiger
The Battlefield
Member since Aug 2010
6769 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:25 am to
the union did not remain, each state was free to join or not join or not join the new government, rhode iskand could have chosen to remain an independent nation. which they nearly did. several states only ratified the constitution with the expressed right to revoke the joining in the future
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
9826 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 6:13 am to
Hmmm, I wonder what his explanation would be on how it was possible for the States to secede from the Confederation of States which, by its nature, was a perpetual union to join the United States? One compact had to be left to join another.

Or, was it ok then (remember Abe was all for secession when Texas was leaving Mexico, but not when it wanted to leave the USA), but not now that he was in POWER?

Nothing says free will like joining a club that will kill you if you leave.
Posted by HueyLongJr
Member since Oct 2007
888 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 7:13 am to
quote:

The Denocratic and Republican parties inverted positions during the civil rights era.


I must have missed the memo when the Democrats “became” the Republican Party. Yes, the Republicans today are the party with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment, racial preferences, etc.

Today the Dems are in favor of strong racism in the form of Affirmative Action and DEI.

The only constant in American politics since 1828 has been the unrelenting focus of the Democratic Party to organize our society by race.
Posted by dawgfan24348
Member since Oct 2011
51373 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 10:37 am to
quote:

southern states succeeded due to states rights.

I love when people bring this up and try to hide the real reason they left. Yes it was the right to own slaves, the they get pissy because you'd point out the reality that their little rebellion that they fetishize is actually just a bunch of rich assholes mad that they can't profit over enslaving people anymore and that the Confederacy was an enemy of America that barley lasted four years. Not much heritage in something that didn't even last half a decade
Posted by dawgfan24348
Member since Oct 2011
51373 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 10:46 am to
This is such a poor understanding of party history. The switch started during the Civil rights era when we had the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and desegregation all under Democrats. Southern Democrats hated the idea and started to gradually move to the Republican as they leaned more to traditionalism and states rights. The North switches to Dems after FDR and his heavy emphasis on pro worker and pro union policies. You also had Republicans using what became known as the southern strategy which was to convince white southerners to change from democrat to republican once again hitting that beat of law and order and states rights.
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
33563 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 10:49 am to
If only we had a polit board
Posted by Harry Boutte
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2024
3350 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 11:54 am to
quote:

the union did not remain

It was the same congress.
quote:

each state was free to join or not join or not join the new government

At that point they could have left, but none did.
quote:

rhode iskand could have chosen to remain an independent nation.

But they didn't.
quote:

several states only ratified the constitution with the expressed right to revoke the joining in the future

You have a source for this?
quote:

CSATiger

In any case, your cause is lost. Get over it already.
Posted by Riverside
Member since Jul 2022
8088 posts
Posted on 7/5/25 at 12:11 pm to
No, the dems have fabricated a total lie that they “switched” positions with the GOP in the 1960s, when nothing could be further from the truth. Gullible school children are told this and the media repeat it, so the lie continues.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

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

FacebookXInstagram