Secession: an academic discussion

[BigRed]

I would rather see States have more rights and the ability to actually govern their own people without federal interjection.

Nullification can neuter the central state.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Same has been said of Brexit.

Well, that was an artificial union. England was an independent country (empire originally) before agreeing to join the EU. The states have (with the one notable exception) always been a part of one country - the USA. So a better analogy would be the individual regions or counties seceding from England. Never happened of course.

Subdivisions of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jamil]

I have. They were to negotiate purchase and debt settlement. Anything negotiated would have been subject to congressional approval.

Lincoln refused any peaceful relations with States walking away as was their reserved power.

The south viewed federal lands as theirs. The commissioners were supposed to negotiate "friendly relations" with the North and, "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." They weren't sent there specifically to negotiate the price for federal land. There was no scenario where they were not going to claim federal land as theirs.

Regardless, the Federal government, being the rightful owners on behalf of the United States of America, had a right to decline any offers anyway, and retain the land. The first shot was because of that fact. The North had the right to re-supply Fort Sumter however they saw fit.

The commission was ignored by the US government, because to hear them was an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Confederate government. The insistence that the aggression was on the side of the North is silly. They have a right to have rejected the secession. They have a right to do what they will with their own land. Lincoln told the Governor of SC that he would re-supply Fort Sumter but would not reinforce troops, resupply with ammo or arms, unless SC attacked.

Davis could not abide that so he ordered Anderson, the commander of Ft Sumter, to surrender. Anderson declined, and you know the rest.

To continue to take the position that the North were the aggressors you would have to be of the opinion that the South had a right to claim the resources that belonged to the United States. Regardless of whether the South wanted to compensate the North for the land does not make the US Government the aggressors. They have a right to decline a sale.

So what if Nevada wanted to secede? Probably the US government is not inclined to just hand over 90% of US land inside Nevada to them. But it doesn't matter if it's only a few acres.

 

[BigRed]

Well, that was an artificial union. England was an independent country (empire originally) before agreeing to join the EU. The states have (with the one notable exception) always been a part of one country - the USA. So a better analogy would be the individual regions or counties seceding from England. Never happened of course.

Subdivisions of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At a minimum, the 13 original colonies were sovereign states before forming a union.

 

[jamil]

Nullification can neuter the central state.

There are political ramifications of that. How far does it go? Is it legitimate that States nullify the Federal government's authority over the US border? Over immigration?

 

[jamil]

At a minimum, the 13 original colonies were sovereign states before forming a union.

Sure. And then they all ratified the US Constitution. I'd like us to get back to the principles of federalism, where the states have jusrisdiction over matters of their state.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

At a minimum, the 13 original colonies were sovereign states before forming a union.

That's right, but that horse has left the barn a couple hundred years ago.

 

[BigRed]

The south viewed federal lands as theirs. The commissioners were supposed to negotiate "friendly relations" with the North and, "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." They weren't sent there specifically to negotiate the price for federal land. There was no scenario where they were not going to claim federal land as theirs.

Regardless, the Federal government, being the rightful owners on behalf of the United States of America, had a right to decline any offers anyway, and retain the land. The first shot was because of that fact. The North had the right to re-supply Fort Sumter however they saw fit.

The commission was ignored by the US government, because to hear them was an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Confederate government. The insistence that the aggression was on the side of the North is silly. They have a right to have rejected the secession. They have a right to do what they will with their own land. Lincoln told the Governor of SC that he would re-supply Fort Sumter but would not reinforce troops, resupply with ammo or arms, unless SC attacked.

Davis could not abide that so he ordered Anderson, the commander of Ft Sumter, to surrender. Anderson declined, and you know the rest.

To continue to take the position that the North were the aggressors you would have to be of the opinion that the South had a right to claim the resources that belonged to the United States. Regardless of whether the South wanted to compensate the North for the land does not make the US Government the aggressors. They have a right to decline a sale.

So what if Nevada wanted to secede? Probably the US government is not inclined to just hand over 90% of US land inside Nevada to them. But it doesn't matter if it's only a few acres.

There was never a scenario where the tyrannical Lincoln would let States peacefully exercise their reserved power to walk away.

 

[BigRed]

There are political ramifications of that. How far does it go? Is it legitimate that States nullify the Federal government's authority over the US border? Over immigration?

Of course there are.

 

[cobber]

Wasn’t sure if this had been posted?

American democracy at the start of the Biden presidency | Bright Line Watch

brightlinewatch.org

 

[jamil]

There was never a scenario where the tyrannical Lincoln would let States peacefully exercise their reserved power to walk away.

That’s not what happened though. It’s an ideologically derived belief that the side that’s severing ties to a central government is always in the right. The goals of the south were indeed to maintain their own aristocracy. The writings of their own leaders betray that fact. “States rights” was propaganda. They didn’t give a **** about states rights except when it was their own believed right to maintain their own status.

 

[jamil]

Of course there are.

Does a state have the right to harbor illegal aliens?

 

[BigRed]

Does a state have the right to harbor illegal aliens?

Does a state have a right to legalize marijuana?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

.

 

[jamil]

Does a state have a right to legalize marijuana?

You answer mine first.

 

[jamil]

.

Profound. Yet concise. A quality post indeed.

 

[BigRed]

You go right ahead.

 

[Leadeye]

The long and short of the American Civil War is that it was fought over slavery and a lot of things were missed by the leadership of both sides of the issue which resulted in the terrible conflict. What was a slave in 1850? To abolitionists a slave was a human being in amoral bondage.To slave owners a slave was an asset, a piece of agricultural machinery.

For a moment lets go back to that time when the bad decisions are being made. The big money in the southern states knows that most of the slaves are owned by a smaller group of the population so not everybody is getting the benefits. In the event of secession it's going to be a hard sell to small farmers in the south to take the bad that's coming just to keep the rich guys rich or make them richer. The leadership changes the narrative from the slavery question to one of states rights first, slavery as a secondary issue. Southern economic leadership has now linked the two issues and the next move should be to separate them again. A federal plan to bring economic development to the southern states, turn that cotton into clothes in factories in Dixie, rather than sell it to Europe. Abolish slavery and provide some compensation for the loss to their owners. That's an expensive move and on the surface would seem to reward an amoral activity but you have to compare it to what's coming with secession.

Everybody loses in the civil war, and they are all Americans. American leadership is supposed to look out for the general welfare of the people it represents and this was a colossal failure. Winfield Scott advised that imposing abolition on the southern states would be long, costly and bloody, he was the best military mind in the US of the time. What was the better decision?

When we consider secession I think it's best to know why and what it's worth. We were all Americans back in the 1850s, just like today.

 

[jamil]

You go right ahead.

I sense that you don’t want to answer my question. A gesture of good will: Yes. States have a right to legalize MJ within their own state, as lomg as they don’t engage in sales between states.

 

[BigRed]

I suspect harboring would be a federal offense.