Reply With Quote
There never was a substantive interest, Lite.
Did you get your nothing w yet?
your claim was that secession movements were quite public and was a prevalent narrative before the civil war. i asked you to support that statement and you sent me a link to a book and have offered nothing else in support.
the substantive discussion about secession has ended since that point
There never was a substantive interest, Lite.
Did you get your nothing w yet?
dont care for supposed tiny w's
how about you just send me some evidence of secession being a prevalent narrative before the civil war in your attempt to justify it's legality?
Why don't you take five minutes to look for yourself if you're supposedly so interested?
i have, and couldnt find any evidence of it being a prevalent view. since its your claim, i just assumed you'd be able to support it in a way that didnt require me to go to the bookstore
Doubling, tripling, quadrupling down compulsively like your mentor.
https://www.historynet.com/secession
I can understand why you're painfully ignorant about this all. Our public indoctrination system doesn't want the average lemming to understand such intricacies.First Calls for Secession
Following ratification by 11 of the 13 states, the government began operation under the new U.S. Cons ution in March 1789. In less than 15 years, states of New England had already threatened to secede from the Union. The first time was a threat to leave if the Assumption Bill, which provided for the federal government to assume the debts of the various states, were not passed. The next threat was over the expense of the Louisiana Purchase. Then, in 1812, President James Madison, the man who had done more than any other individual to shape the Cons ution, led the United States into a new war with Great Britain. The New England states objected, for war would cut into their trade with Britain and Europe. Resentment grew so strong that a convention was called at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814, to discuss secession for the New England states. The Hartford Convention was the most serious secession threat up to that time, but its delegates took no action.
Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery. But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were "unauthorized by the cons ution of the United States" and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.
thanks for actually continuing the discussion
https://www.historynet.com/secession
I can understand why you're painfully ignorant about this all. Our public indoctrination system doesn't want the average lemming to understand such intricacies.
as to the post, great, it came up twice. no action ever taken. nothing to indicate the legality or cons utionality of secession.
in the first instance, a convention was held where apparently some members mentioned it. apparently wasn't taken very seriously, as the convention concluded with a report identifying what changes the participants wanted enacted. secession was not among them.
here's what happened after the second instance
so we have 2 situations where secession was mentioned, at no point were any steps taken towards an actual secession, so its hard to use those as evidence of secession being a legitimate option or legal under the cons utionPresident Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Cons ution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." (Emphasis is Jackson’s). Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken). That proved unnecessary, as a compromise tariff was approved, and South Carolina rescinded its Nullification Ordinance.
thanks for actually continuing the discussion
You were just doing a Chumpian tactic that backfired. Stop demanding links as a means of tiny w's. It's pathetic.
Well, those were the two times with the most ground swell of support, probably. I wouldn't be hasty to oversimplify.
There's no clause in the Cons ution prohibiting secession. That inconvenient truth along with the history of both north and south believing in it as a measure slaps you.
You really should read that book before you ignorantly cling to that notion too hard.
So some dudes were wrong for 100 years. Not unusual for the US.
State vetoes / nullification and secession are separate issues, Philo.
Not much to say. Why do you want to venerate the traitors?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
