PROOF THAT SECESSION WAS "LEGAL"

CAVEAT: I OPPOSE SECESSION and would have fought against it based upon my theory you cannot have stable Government if an unhappy state can just take its ball and go home. With that argument an unhappy city could leave a state. And every happy citizen could make his own damn country. You have a network of “one man rule” not a democracy. [Thus saith the Emperor Fatman! Ruler of All He Surveys!]

At present, secession is NOT LEGAL under the Constitution by tradition and understanding. Though not codified in the document itself, it was settled on the battlefield when the CSA army agreed to return to the union. And before get your panties in a bunch, there are more than several laws though not codified are supported by ongoing tradition and pragmatism – tax exemption for religious organizations won on such a claim. And of course the State of West Virginia, which was ripped without permission from Virginia while the Union argument had been that Virginia was still part of the USA. Even after the war, it was not returned.

BUT the CSA army and populace agreeing to abide by a rule DOES NOT mean the these American citizens cannot continue to disagree or fight their beliefs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can strive to change this by legislation, by appointing judges with their viewpoint, or, if the political nonsense is to be avoided, Constitutional Amendment.

That said:

THE SIMPLE PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF SECESSION IN THE AMERICAN MIND OF 1860


The simple proof for supporters of secession is that they never brought Jefferson Davis to trial. He wanted one. The problem was what if the Court found South Carolina correct!?! Good chance given that the Southerners Justices who remained “loyal” - in theory - dominated the Court. Once the court rule: LEGALITY!!

FACTUAL BASIS OF THEIR FEAR

When the States signed the Constitution they were more like the EU – little self-sustaining entities that had little to do with each other. They each thought of themselves as little countries who bounded together for their own benefit in certain area AND THOSE AREAS ONLY [thus Bornyo’s pertinent quote of the Constitution].

States have almost gone to war several times.

New York and the New Hampshire “Green Mountain Boys” over the area east of Lake Champlain. Settled by creating the 14th State [Vermont = green mountain].

Pennsylvania and Connecticut argued over the land to west of Pennsylvania, which had been assigned to Connecticut by colonial charter as its “Western Reserve”. Thus Ohio.

Michigan and Ohio over the city of Toledo. Michigan got the U.P. – that odd jut of land north of Wisconsin – for relinquishing its claim.

How could they even think of a war if not as separate entities?


SECESSION WAS A NEW ENGLAND INVENTION AND THEORY NOT SOUTHERN.

The citizens of what would be Vermont attempted to secede in the middle of the Revolution.

Massachusetts threatened secession in 1803 over the unconstitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase [another “uncodified” precedent that was adopted!].

New England Federalists were angry when the war they so stridently fought to start was cutting in to the ol’ pocketbook. When the rest of the country complained about New England States SELLING ARMS TO BRITISH AND CANADIAN FORCES in the middle of the War of 1812 they decided to act in their own "treasonous" interests.

Federalists from Massachusetts [which included Maine at the time], Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont formed the “Hartford Convention” to in 1814. They drafted a list of “demands” with the threat of secession – the same secession that South Carolina would claim when it left the Union in 1860!!!!!!!!


The argument that "Articles of Confederation" creating a "Perpetual Union" has dubious validity in the face of its replacement by the Constitution. This doubt grow greater when so many of the original states who questioned the CSA raised the secession "banner" when it suited their own purposes...

QE mother-fucking D!!!




But AGAIN I do and would have opposed it...