Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Secession isn't a 'right' and never has been.
    Yes it is. "Soverign power" means all power, and "the powers not delegated to the United States" means all powers. A soverign state, which is what the states are according to the Federalist Papers and the X Amednemnt, has the power to secede from Unions and withdraw from alliances. It has the power to do anything it pleases.
    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

      You are correct here Massena. From the American Battlefield Trust website, which gives a full explaination: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...ication-crisis

      "In 1832 Congress replaced the Tariff of Abominations with a lower tariff; however, that was not enough to satisfy the South Carolinians who had made faint threats of nullification since 1828. Almost immediately following Jackson’s re-election in 1832, South Carolina, fortified by the recent election of many state nullifiers, formed a convention that denounced the Tariff of Abominations and its 1832 revision and formally adopted an Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared those tariffs null and void and forbade the collection of duties within the boundary of the state following February 1, 1833. Finally, the ordinance declared that any act of force by Congress against South Carolina would lead to its immediate secession from the union.

      In the past Jackson simply acknowledged the supremacy of union over state sovereignty without taking any direct action; however, this explicit threat of secession forced him to act against these nullifiers. Jackson advised his Secretary of War Lewis Cass to prepare for war, and over the course of a few months, Cass complied arms and enlisted a militia in preparation to enter South Carolina to enforce the tariff and prevent secession. During his war preparations, Jackson engaged in a national public relations campaign to discredit nullification in the mind of the American public. Jackson gave speeches against nullification that vehemently denounced South Carolina and promoted unionism. Jackson also gave a special speech to Congress asking them to reaffirm his authority to use force to ensure the execution of United States laws, which Congress complied with in a bill aptly known as Jackson’s force bill."

      Regards,
      Dennis
      Yes, they threatened to secede if force was used against them, and force was never used against them. If it had been, it would have been treason, since the Constitution defines treason as making war against the states. Andrew Jackson was nicknamed "King," probably with derision.

      Nullification was, of course, a valid precedent established during the Alien and Sedition Acts and the War of 1812.
      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

      Comment


      • #48
        But in post 37 you said
        South Carolina did not threaten to secede during the "Nullification Crisis;" they nullified a federal law, then agreed to a compromise to reduce the tariff over time.
        Now you attach qualifiers that were not present in your original erroneous post. Still incorrect, SC, led by J, C. Calhoun, certainly did so. They nullified nothing, backing down from their guns not because of compromise, (as the article I cited showed they disagreed with the reduced tariff as well), but because Jackson would have marched on SC and hung them for what they would have been, traitors.

        Now the Hartford Convention and your stated lack of minutes from it. That was a secret meeting. Minutes from such, if present at all, are exceedingly rare. Simply because no written minutes kept by the participants exist does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the reports of their discussions are incorrect. Those reports certainly can't be proven wrong. Though that may be your opinion, and opinion is all it is, does not make it fact.

        Those men keeping a written record of their debates at the Hartford Convention would be about as stupid as the Klan keeping written records of who they were going to lynch.

        Regards,
        Dennis
        Last edited by D1J1; 09 Jul 20, 15:47. Reason: Edited to add clarifying text
        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by American87 View Post
          Nullification was, of course, a valid precedent established during the Alien and Sedition Acts and the War of 1812.
          Nullification has no precedent. It is merely and only an opinion held primarily by Jefferson and his supporters during the period you mention. Opinion is not fact, nor is it established precedent. Interesting that you cite laws that are mainly, if not entirely in violation of the First Amendment.

          Regards,
          Dennis
          If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

          Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by American87 View Post

            Yes it is. "Soverign power" means all power, and "the powers not delegated to the United States" means all powers. A soverign state, which is what the states are according to the Federalist Papers and the X Amednemnt, has the power to secede from Unions and withdraw from alliances. It has the power to do anything it pleases.
            Citing the 10th Amendment, which is vague at best, does not support either your opinions nor does it establish a right of a state to secede from the Union. A vivid imagination does not support it either.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
              But in post 37 you said

              Now you attach qualifiers that were not present in your original erroneous post. Still incorrect, SC, led by J, C. Calhoun, certainly did so. They nullified nothing, backing down from their guns not because of compromise, (as the article I cited showed they disagreed with the reduced tariff as well), but because Jackson would have marched on SC and hung them for what they would have been, traitors.

              Now the Hartford Convention and your stated lack of minutes from it. That was a secret meeting. Minutes from such, if present at all, are exceedingly rare. Simply because no written minutes kept by the participants exist does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the reports of their discussions are incorrect. Those reports certainly can't be proven wrong. Though that may be your opinion, and opinion is all it is, does not make it fact.

              Those men keeping a written record of their debates at the Hartford Convention would be about as stupid as the Klan keeping written records of who they were going to lynch.

              Regards,
              Dennis
              Nullification was the precedent set by Virginia and Kentucky in 1799 for declaring federal laws unconstitutional, and it was followed by New England states during the War of 1812. President Jackson introduced a new concept by calling for a veritable declaration of war against a state, which was and is treason.
              The Founders should have been more clear in delegating the power of declaring federal law unconstitutional. As it was, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison claimed that power for the states, and then Chief Justice John Marshall claimed that power for the Supreme Court. Neither had constitutional backing.
              The one thing not to do was go to war against a state for following precedent. That was treason, and South Carolina was well within its right to secede if the president and Congress were willing to declare war on it rather than work it out peacefully. South Carolina deserves credit for compromising on the tariff, even if they had to eat crow in the process.

              There is little comparison between the Hartford Convention and a Klan meeting designed for planning lynchings. Lynching is a capital offense, whereas secession was accepted as a political right, even if it was bad policy.
              The Hartford Convention shows that secession was not a regional or factional issue, but a state one. And I've never read that the other states wanted to go to war with New England to keep them in the Union.
              "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

              "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                Citing the 10th Amendment, which is vague at best, does not support either your opinions nor does it establish a right of a state to secede from the Union. A vivid imagination does not support it either.
                Citing the Constitution is how constitutional law cases work. The X Ammendment is clear.
                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Not read much beyond the OP, but here is my 0 cents worth of opinion.
                  1) The Civilian Leadership should not be tried unless they left FEDERAL service without resigning.
                  2) Officers the same way. You resign, blanket pardon. You don't; you get tried for desertion.
                  3) Blanket pardon for all WOs, NCOs and ORs. They didn't have the resign option.

                  Should they have been tried for treason? That's tough. If you did; you'd start a guerilla war But also how one viewed the Nation and to whom one's loyalty was was different back then. Look at how the economies of each section was different. In the North trade goods move East to West and vice versa mainly with some coming south. It was an integrated economy. The states needed each other and so was united. The south's economy was food and cotton MAINLY. So the product was sent to a central location (usually the capitol) and so fostered a reliance on the individual state. Not any other state or the union as a whole. The only unifying force in the South was a dependence on slaves. That's it. So for the average dirt clod hopper farmer (I come from a long lime of dirt clod farmers) he looked no further than say Atlanta in Georgia. So for him the Federal Government was taxes and mail. He didn't see trade cross borders as a Federal thing, but just simply economic. So no tying bonds with the other states. And they thought the Constitution would allow a state to leave the Union. So they never considered it treason. So in every way I look at it; they should not be tried for Treason.

                  Let me put my biases on the line. I had 3 relatives, that I know of, fight for the Confederate Army including one KIA. I FIRMLY believe they fought for state and home and not slavery. But the CSA did fight for slavery and thus a bad, bad, cause.

                  Should the Confederate military be reviled? No. Most were the regular poor dumb schmuck that the US produces for every war. I think we all can roundly damn the cause, but shouldn't damn them.
                  Should we revile the Civilian Leadership? HELL yes! They were the rich old men ho sent the dumb young schmucks to war to protect their profit.
                  Should we revile the CSA? *CENSORED* *CENSORED* YES! Why are we thinking to talk about it. THE CSA WAS EVIL. It's a shame good people on both sides had to die or get caught up in the war. Both sides suffered. And the black people suffered the most and are still suffering to this day. Sorry if this is old news, but I've not been around much lately.
                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The Chairman of the JCOS has chimed in....The CSA was straight up a rebellion and an act of treason. In his opinion
                    "It was an act of treason at the time against the Union," Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of the Confederacy, as the Pentagon explores options for 10 Army installations named after rebel leaders.
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Secession was a suicidal decision, not so much for the country because the United States continued on its way, but the South would take a century to recover. The new South dates back to the 1960s. This region, however, still has a reputation for archaism and racism that sticks to its skin. Because secession marginalized the South, whereas, since colonial origins, this region, with New England, had always played a structuring role in the history of the country.
                      The South was also the victim of a conflict, one of the first modern wars, particularly devastating. The South registered nearly 300,000 deaths, the states of Virginia and North Carolina more than 30,000 each. The cities of Richmond, Atlanta and Columbia (South Carolina) were completely wiped out, hundreds of plantations burnt down and thousands of square kilometers of land devastated. The economy of the South was disintegrated. This was the price to pay for this suicidal stubbornness.
                      The American Civil War was for the country a historic fracture and a deep wound, but above all a war of union and liberation. Four million slaves were suddenly released. Slavery was abolished by a constitutional amendment (the 13th) in 1865. The victory of the North was also the victory of the union. Henceforth, secession, judged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Texas v. White decision of 1869, will be no more than a counter challenge.
                      At the end of the war, the federal government, beneficiary of the failure of secession and therefore of the unconditional supporters of state rights, will increase its influence. The America of what is called the Gilded Age, according to the title of a 1873 Mark Twain novel, begins its path to its future status as a great economic power which it has reached before the end of the century.

                      So who were the culprits? Who should we judge?
                      Not the common people, embarked on this adventure ... they have suffered enough like that!
                      Not the soldiers, NCO's, Officers and Generals ... they only did their duty, and responded to orders!
                      So ?
                      All these politicards of all stripes, who spark wars but take care not to take part in them (a war of rich men made by poor men) and who resume their activities at the end of the conflict, as if nothing happened was. They are the ones who should have been severely tried and declared ineligible for any position of responsibility.

                      But today nothing has changed, it is the same liars, the same false promisers, the same greedy men, who are primarily concerned with their own prosperity and who use the country rather than serve it. So in the next conflict, we should give arms to Presidents and Vice-Presidents, to Ministers, to Representatives and Senators, to the arms-sellers, and to all "go to war ", and send them first to the front line.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by American87 View Post

                        Nullification was the precedent set by Virginia and Kentucky in 1799 for declaring federal laws unconstitutional, and it was followed by New England states during the War of 1812. President Jackson introduced a new concept by calling for a veritable declaration of war against a state, which was and is treason.
                        The Founders should have been more clear in delegating the power of declaring federal law unconstitutional. As it was, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison claimed that power for the states, and then Chief Justice John Marshall claimed that power for the Supreme Court. Neither had constitutional backing.
                        The one thing not to do was go to war against a state for following precedent. That was treason, and South Carolina was well within its right to secede if the president and Congress were willing to declare war on it rather than work it out peacefully. South Carolina deserves credit for compromising on the tariff, even if they had to eat crow in the process.

                        There is little comparison between the Hartford Convention and a Klan meeting designed for planning lynchings. Lynching is a capital offense, whereas secession was accepted as a political right, even if it was bad policy.
                        The Hartford Convention shows that secession was not a regional or factional issue, but a state one. And I've never read that the other states wanted to go to war with New England to keep them in the Union.
                        All claims and opinion. Nothing proven in court, so still just opinion.

                        My comparison with the Hartford Convention and the Klan had nothing to do with the actual crime involved, but simply that criminals don't publicize what they are doing if they think it will put them in the wrong.

                        Jackson committed no treason in upholding his oath to preserve and protect the union.

                        The fact is that the only actual attempted secession, and let me emphasize attempted, that took place was purely a sectional issue. While others may have opined on the matter, only the south tried it. For their court they choose the battlefield and were found guilty.

                        Regards,
                        Dennis
                        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                          All claims and opinion. Nothing proven in court, so still just opinion.

                          My comparison with the Hartford Convention and the Klan had nothing to do with the actual crime involved, but simply that criminals don't publicize what they are doing if they think it will put them in the wrong.

                          Jackson committed no treason in upholding his oath to preserve and protect the union.

                          The fact is that the only actual attempted secession, and let me emphasize attempted, that took place was purely a sectional issue. While others may have opined on the matter, only the south tried it. For their court they choose the battlefield and were found guilty.

                          Regards,
                          Dennis
                          Wasn't there a southern threat of secession put before the Compromise of 1850?
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                            Not read much beyond the OP, but here is my 0 cents worth of opinion.
                            1) The Civilian Leadership should not be tried unless they left FEDERAL service without resigning.
                            2) Officers the same way. You resign, blanket pardon. You don't; you get tried for desertion.
                            3) Blanket pardon for all WOs, NCOs and ORs. They didn't have the resign option.

                            Should they have been tried for treason? That's tough. If you did; you'd start a guerilla war But also how one viewed the Nation and to whom one's loyalty was was different back then. Look at how the economies of each section was different. In the North trade goods move East to West and vice versa mainly with some coming south. It was an integrated economy. The states needed each other and so was united. The south's economy was food and cotton MAINLY. So the product was sent to a central location (usually the capitol) and so fostered a reliance on the individual state. Not any other state or the union as a whole. The only unifying force in the South was a dependence on slaves. That's it. So for the average dirt clod hopper farmer (I come from a long lime of dirt clod farmers) he looked no further than say Atlanta in Georgia. So for him the Federal Government was taxes and mail. He didn't see trade cross borders as a Federal thing, but just simply economic. So no tying bonds with the other states. And they thought the Constitution would allow a state to leave the Union. So they never considered it treason. So in every way I look at it; they should not be tried for Treason.

                            Let me put my biases on the line. I had 3 relatives, that I know of, fight for the Confederate Army including one KIA. I FIRMLY believe they fought for state and home and not slavery. But the CSA did fight for slavery and thus a bad, bad, cause.

                            Should the Confederate military be reviled? No. Most were the regular poor dumb schmuck that the US produces for every war. I think we all can roundly damn the cause, but shouldn't damn them.
                            Should we revile the Civilian Leadership? HELL yes! They were the rich old men ho sent the dumb young schmucks to war to protect their profit.
                            Should we revile the CSA? *CENSORED* *CENSORED* YES! Why are we thinking to talk about it. THE CSA WAS EVIL. It's a shame good people on both sides had to die or get caught up in the war. Both sides suffered. And the black people suffered the most and are still suffering to this day. Sorry if this is old news, but I've not been around much lately.
                            They took up arms against their own country in order to defend a corrupt and immoral institution. The actual question that should be put is should they be honored for it. And the answer is a blunt 'no.'
                            We are not now that strength which in old days
                            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                              The Chairman of the JCOS has chimed in....The CSA was straight up a rebellion and an act of treason. In his opinion
                              General Milley hit the proverbial nail on the head.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                                General Milley hit the proverbial nail on the head.
                                I believe the army will be renaming bases in the near future, that brings up the question, why doesn't the army name bases after states, cities, and presidents and men who have received the MoH, like the Navy names ships?
                                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • Karri
                                  Prawn heads
                                  by Karri
                                  How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                  So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                  Today, 11:40
                                • Jose50
                                  Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                  by Jose50
                                  Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                  Today, 08:41
                                • Von Richter
                                  Sagittarius Rising...
                                  by Von Richter
                                  Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                  Today, 01:19
                                Working...
                                X