Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    01 Feb '16 18:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That is fair enough but the reason the Southern States seceded was because of Lincoln's election which they viewed as a threat to the continued existence of slavery in the South. Trying to say the dispute was over "States' Rights" is misleading; of course the US never recognized that constituent States had a legitimate power to secede (finding a Framer w ...[text shortened]... tion which Southerners believed was at the core of their society both economically and socially.
    All the factors that caused the act of secession should be considered, but another way to look at it would be why did the Govt. act on Ammon Bundys little refuge takeover. It was not because the BLM should or shouldn't exist or that armed citizens can or can't organize. They did an act which is intolerable to the Government. The Government can't start putting up with armed people taking over Federal facilities every time there is a protest. The Govt. had to take action. A very foolish thing to do is put a Government in the position of having to take armed intervention when its forces are far superior. At least the South had more of a fighting chance.
  2. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    01 Feb '16 18:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That is fair enough but the reason the Southern States seceded was because of Lincoln's election which they viewed as a threat to the continued existence of slavery in the South. Trying to say the dispute was over "States' Rights" is misleading; of course the US never recognized that constituent States had a legitimate power to secede (finding a Framer w ...[text shortened]... tion which Southerners believed was at the core of their society both economically and socially.
    In 1812 Massachusetts and New Hampshire threatened secession, and the very act of Declaring Independence from the British crown was a secession, so in its founding, the US declared secession a legal and proper means. Nothing in the Constitution, or in State Constitutions is there to overturn this basic right of people to form their own government.

    There is no divine right of Kings or Presidents.
  3. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    01 Feb '16 19:06
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    All the factors that caused the act of secession should be considered, but another way to look at it would be why did the Govt. act on Ammon Bundys little refuge takeover. It was not because the BLM should or shouldn't exist or that armed citizens can or can't organize. They did an act which is intolerable to the Government. The Government can't start pu ...[text shortened]... intervention when its forces are far superior. At least the South had more of a fighting chance.
    A lot can be gleaned from the Civil War experience. Of course small scale rebellions like that of Bundy is doomed from the start, but the overreach of government gunmen can raise the public's hackles, and change the outcome.

    Actually, the CSA wasn't quite as out-manned and out gunned as Bundy, but it had little chance of long term success. Until Gettysburg, the entire war was fought on Southern land, and many speculate that if it had stayed that way, Union losses would have forced Lincoln to abandon the war.

    Tactically, Ft. Sumpter, and other evictions by southern States of US facilities may have been OK, but strategically, negotiating for their removal might have worked better. Once gunpowder was ignited, the Federals had more men and more guns, and the eventual outcome was all but determined.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Feb '16 19:09
    Originally posted by normbenign
    In 1812 Massachusetts and New Hampshire threatened secession, and the very act of Declaring Independence from the British crown was a secession, so in its founding, the US declared secession a legal and proper means. Nothing in the Constitution, or in State Constitutions is there to overturn this basic right of people to form their own government.

    There is no divine right of Kings or Presidents.
    We've been over the 1812 situation numerous times; neither State publicly declared or supported secession. Some schemed about it in secret but such scheming does not a Constitutional principle make.

    The making of the US was a compact between the People, not the result of a tyranny imposed by a Monarch. The People having made the US only the People together could dissolve it. There is nothing in the founding of the nation implying any "right" to secession and every Framer who discussed it disclaimed such a "right". These indisputable historical facts have been presented to you many times.

    Secession whenever you please is incompatible with the concept of democratic government and certainly incompatible with the theory under which the nation was formed. That is why the Union was declared to be Perpetual five times in the Articles of Confederation.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Feb '16 19:13
    Originally posted by normbenign
    A lot can be gleaned from the Civil War experience. Of course small scale rebellions like that of Bundy is doomed from the start, but the overreach of government gunmen can raise the public's hackles, and change the outcome.

    Actually, the CSA wasn't quite as out-manned and out gunned as Bundy, but it had little chance of long term success. Until Gett ...[text shortened]... nited, the Federals had more men and more guns, and the eventual outcome was all but determined.
    There was fighting in quite a few States that did not secede before Gettysburg and also in the western territories. The idea that Lincoln would have ever abandoned the war until reunification was achieved is fanciful.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    01 Feb '16 19:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    We've been over the 1812 situation numerous times; neither State publicly declared or supported secession. Some schemed about it in secret but such scheming does not a Constitutional principle make.

    The making of the US was a compact between the People, not the result of a tyranny imposed by a Monarch. The People having made the US only the People tog ...[text shortened]... That is why the Union was declared to be Perpetual five times in the Articles of Confederation.
    You ignore that the very foundation of the US government was a secession.
  7. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    01 Feb '16 19:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    A lot can be gleaned from the Civil War experience. Of course small scale rebellions like that of Bundy is doomed from the start, but the overreach of government gunmen can raise the public's hackles, and change the outcome.

    Actually, the CSA wasn't quite as out-manned and out gunned as Bundy, but it had little chance of long term success. Until Gett ...[text shortened]... nited, the Federals had more men and more guns, and the eventual outcome was all but determined.
    I find the Civil War very interesting too. It is sad though when you see what toll it took. A lot of young mens lives were lost. The conditions were horrific with the medical technology of the day and the weaponry used. Can you imagine what one of those minie balls would do if it hit bone? The old black and white pictures makes it seem like a long time ago, but it was only a century before I was born.
Back to Top