During the first seven decades of the new Republic, many states wanted to secede. The first states were New York and Massachusetts, and they attempted several times. Is secession a right held by the states? You bet your ass it is. The Southern states attempted it later, following legal procedure that the Founding Fathers followed when they seceded from Great Britain. The Founding Fathers established a precedent, which the Southern states followed.
The North's rebuttal was to invade and devastate the Southern states. This is not a legal response, and it doesn't answer the question of whether any state has the right to secede. The answer to whether a state has a right to secede is not that it will be invaded and conquered if it does. That's not law, it's subjugation.
Unfortunately, this is the real issue states are facing: Is it legal for them to secede? Yes, absolutely. If they do, will they be invaded and subjugated? Again, yes absolutely. I hope some states DO secede, particularly Texas. It has the strongest argument for secession.
But I'm getting tired of seeing posts of secession, insurrection, and revolution, particularly by a particular jew. This has been a thing jews have done for 160 years since jew started fomenting workers with labor unions. If you're just agitating, screw off. kikes like you are a dime a dozen.
It was one of the conditions during the ratification process that was agreed upon between the states
Please post that. It's not that I don't believe or even disagree, it's that I have never seen it IN WRITING. It has always been implied.
THIS is what the Constitution says:
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Idk? Now that you say that, it's an interesting topic. Was the formation of WV, by separating it from Virginia, a legal action? Idk.
Less than a month later, Pro-Union Virginians voted to form a second government, the Restored Government of Virginia, on June 17. In August, the Restored Government of Virginia voted to approve the creation of a new state, West Virginia. According to Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution, no new state can be formed from the territory of an existing state without the latter’s consent.
That's a very reasonable request, and I'll do my best to find where I read it. The short answer is that Southern states regarded their secession to be equivalent with the colonies' decision to secede from Great Britain, which is absolutely logical. Southern states used the same convention process that the founding fathers used both to declare independence and to create the Continental Congress and the Constitution. In other words, they followed the same process, which was established legal precedent recognized as a legal formalism by the federal government.
After they finished their deliberations at the convention, each state they took their findings to their state congress to deliberate with their representatives. State congress would again deliberate the proposal as it was presented to them for legality and feasibility.
Now, this is actually what happened. No state would ever have ratified the constitution of it meant they could never leave, and many in fact had to be reassured after years of delay in joining the union that they were free to leave whenever they wished.
Please post that. It's not that I don't believe or even disagree, it's that I have never seen it IN WRITING. It has always been implied.
This is an update to my earlier comment. I have a library of about a dozen or so books on the South, slavery, secession, the War of Northern Aggression, Lincoln's gross abuse of power, etc, but I found this book has a section that addresses the issue very clearly. "The South Was Right", James Ronald Kennedy. You can find it here and see for yourself:
I think if the States will get together, they will find about 45 are Still The United States Republic against ( MSM) DC. Cal. and NY. A State Convention to declare DC. 'invalid' would be a start.
Who were all these Jews anyway? I want names. There were few Jews in America 160 years ago and to the extent organized labor has been insurrectionist in character it has been so due largely to the influences of the likes of the IWW, led by Haywood, a non-Jew, or socialist or communist influences which have been mostly led by Germans or other non-Jews. The one major Jew I can think of here, AFL leader Samuel Gompers, was a moderate that was a force for immigration restriction.
Maybe you're thinking of someone like Emma Goldman?
Or are you thinking outside the US as well?
I'll only give cursory glance to your dumbfuckery calling me Jewish. That is the standard retardation and it's stale. Your 'everything is Jewish' nonsense, I dare say, appeals to few real people.
Will note you lied and asserted I said I'm a Marxist-Leninist commie though when I said I'm NOT that. I don't believe you are a legit poster. You certainly don't argue in good faith and you're certainly not honest. Your tack is defamation and demoralization. Which strongly suggests DISRUPTION.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 08:23:28 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 08:12:26 ago (+1/-0)
Please post that. It's not that I don't believe or even disagree, it's that I have never seen it IN WRITING. It has always been implied.
THIS is what the Constitution says:
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 09:43:05 ago (+1/-0)
Makes West Virginia sound a little dodgy.
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 09:49:16 ago (+0/-0)*
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/west-virginia
TIL. How "factual" and accurate that is who knows? I always assume the truth LIES somewhere in the middle.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 11:10:57 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 10:53:44 ago (+0/-0)
After they finished their deliberations at the convention, each state they took their findings to their state congress to deliberate with their representatives. State congress would again deliberate the proposal as it was presented to them for legality and feasibility.
Now, this is actually what happened. No state would ever have ratified the constitution of it meant they could never leave, and many in fact had to be reassured after years of delay in joining the union that they were free to leave whenever they wished.
I will do my best to find that reference for you.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 11:09:43 ago (+0/-0)
This is an update to my earlier comment. I have a library of about a dozen or so books on the South, slavery, secession, the War of Northern Aggression, Lincoln's gross abuse of power, etc, but I found this book has a section that addresses the issue very clearly. "The South Was Right", James Ronald Kennedy. You can find it here and see for yourself:
https://usa1lib.vip/s/the%20south%20was%20right
[ + ] charmark20
[ - ] charmark20 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 01:17:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 2, 2022 01:13:36 ago (+0/-0)*
Maybe you're thinking of someone like Emma Goldman?
Or are you thinking outside the US as well?
I'll only give cursory glance to your dumbfuckery calling me Jewish. That is the standard retardation and it's stale. Your 'everything is Jewish' nonsense, I dare say, appeals to few real people.
Will note you lied and asserted I said I'm a Marxist-Leninist commie though when I said I'm NOT that. I don't believe you are a legit poster. You certainly don't argue in good faith and you're certainly not honest. Your tack is defamation and demoralization. Which strongly suggests DISRUPTION.