Loading
Good Ole Boy Independent
Petersburg, Illinois US
572 news,
44 videos,
24 blog posts,
4934 comments,
112 forum posts
Recently Submitted News
3 commentsDemocracy Denied: Chnging How DC Works... 4 the Worse
Reaganite - This should help make clear to those still in the ether just how Chairman Zero's virtual dictatorship...
President Ahab and Moby ObamaCare
American Thinker - Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation. It and its leaders have been humiliated twice, in...
America: Still Free, or is it Fascist?
www.lewrockwell.com - A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori...
- 22 Comments
- Add a comment
Show Newest to Oldest
Show Oldest to Newest
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
The Constitution is silent on the issue of the secession of a state from the union. The Articles of Confederation had stated that the earlier union of the colonies "shall be perpetual". In 1860 and 1861, eleven southern states seceded, but were brought back into the Union by force of arms during the Civil War. Following the war, the federal judicial system, in the case of Texas v. White, held that states do not have the right to secede without the consent of the other states, citing the preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union".
The words of the former president are not law, it is his opinion.
The constitution was signed by the thirteen states as a joint venture of 13 different bodies of thought. There were things they agreed upon and things they did not however that is where "States Rights" come in and allows states to run their state however they see fit. The only original requirement by the constitution was that the states had a republic form of governing.
It was not until decades later that the supreme court expanded the role of the federal government in the union.
MrsPresident 1 year ago
President Andrew Jackson, in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina”, made the case for the perpetuity of the Union while also contrasting the differences between “revolution” and “secession”:
But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.
In the midst of the secession crisis that would lead to the Civil War, President James Buchanan in his final State of the Union Speech acknowledged the South would “after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union”, but he also reiterated the difference between “revolution” and “secession”:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
In short the reason why the Federal Gov't did not recognize the succesion of the south is because under the constitution the south could not legally separate from the union. The states could've collectively fought together against the Federal Gov't for unfair oppression in a revolution however that was not the case. They decided to form a whole new nation as the Conferderate States of America, and they formed a whole new gov't. Since they had representation during the making of the constitution and bill of rights and signed the documents into law under the fact that they were a part of the union. They violated the contract they signed. All states are apart of this contract. Legally no state can succeed from the union, they can have an uprising (revolution as the 10th amendment states)but they cannot leave.
OK No more history please. Or do we need to go into the boston tea party and the fact the revolution was about taxation without representation? Our senators are the ones who signed off on the stimulus bills, they represent us (except DC) and majority rules. So the tea parties around the country are all huff and puff.
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to bco2rgr
Prior to the 14th amendment there was nothing stopping states from secession and even after the 14th … Show full comment
Prior to the 14th amendment there was nothing stopping states from secession and even after the 14th … Show full comment
In United States history, the American Civil War was due to a dispute over the rights of the states. In the Election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two because the candidate nominated by Northern Democrats was not supported by the southern Democrats. Stephen A. Douglas was too liberal for the South because he supported the theory of popular sovereignty in the new territories, where the majority of the people in the territories would decide whether slavery would be allowed in the territories. This concept had led to Bleeding Kansas, a series of bloody uprisings in Kansas Territory where the theory was tested. They nominated a candidate who was opposed to this. The Democratic vote was split between the two candidates, allowing the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln to take the election. Although there was a majority of the electoral votes going to Lincoln, there was only a plurality of the popular votes. If one was to combine the Northern and Southern Democratic Parties, They would have a majority of the popular votes. Lincoln's radical platform called for the prevention of the expansion of slavery, and he eventually outlawed the practice of slavery in the Union. The South foresaw this happening, and instead of taking another blow from the North-dominated government, they seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. This effort was spearheaded by South Carolina, the beating heart of the South. The oppressive policies of the North forced the South to secede by their domination of government and their refusal to balance power.
bco2rgr (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to MrsPresident
History lesson number one what you forgot to put in. The Boston Tea Act was one of the things that l … Show full comment
History lesson number one what you forgot to put in. The Boston Tea Act was one of the things that l … Show full comment
Prior to the 14th amendment there was nothing stopping states from secession and even after the 14th Amendment it is still arguable that it is not illegal.
hepsy 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
The Tea Act caused the Boston Tea Party and the ones being held now are over the waste of taxpayers … Show full comment
The Tea Act caused the Boston Tea Party and the ones being held now are over the waste of taxpayers … Show full comment
I don't remember details of the Tea Act, but the Boston Tea Party was always impressive. It was an act of courage, to protest taxation that did not benefit the people taxed, the way they did.
Basic similarity to the then Taxation to today's Stimulus is that We, the People have voiced our opposition to the taxation.
Basic difference in the two is that the Boston Tea Party didn't tell their Tax Oppressors they were mounting an impressive demonstration. But, then, they didn't need a permit to peaceably assemble.
(But I wasn't there, wish I had been!)
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 1 year ago
Reply to MrsPresident
History lesson number one what you forgot to put in. The Boston Tea Act was one of the things that l … Show full comment
History lesson number one what you forgot to put in. The Boston Tea Act was one of the things that l … Show full comment
The Tea Act caused the Boston Tea Party and the ones being held now are over the waste of taxpayers money on the stimulus bills.
Legal scholars from all over the world said the South had the Contitutional right to secede.
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
History lesson one, The Boston tea party was about the Tea Act, a tax on tea. Number two, Lincoln … Show full comment
History lesson one, The Boston tea party was about the Tea Act, a tax on tea. Number two, Lincoln … Show full comment
History lesson number one what you forgot to put in. The Boston Tea Act was one of the things that led up to the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Not the civil war.
History lesson number 2 what you also forgot. Lincoln used that to tax the south to death so then they would give up the use of slaves, since slaves were considered property and not people Lincoln knew he just couldn't order them free (yes I know that is way oversimplified) the southern states then suceeded to make their own nation and they set up their own gov't based off the union's gov't, with minor changes. Lincoln knew that secession from the union was agaisnt the constitution therefore he urged congress to declare war against the south, thus the civil war started.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 1 year ago
Reply to MrsPresident
So the American Revolution was not because of the British rule? And the Civil War was not because of … Show full comment
So the American Revolution was not because of the British rule? And the Civil War was not because of … Show full comment
History lesson one, The Boston tea party was about the Tea Act, a tax on tea.
Number two, Lincoln said he would use federal troops to invade and enforce tariffs that tripled the ones in place. Southern states endorsed free trade. The supplanting of federal troops in state forts and the threat of invasion precipitated the secession.
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
You don't know your history either, the taxes were not near what we are taxed now. The bills pas … Show full comment
You don't know your history either, the taxes were not near what we are taxed now. The bills pas … Show full comment
My original comment is 4 below this one. not the one about taxes that you responded to. I have 2 kids. I don't pay as much taxes as you do :)
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
You don't know your history either, the taxes were not near what we are taxed now. The bills pas … Show full comment
You don't know your history either, the taxes were not near what we are taxed now. The bills pas … Show full comment
So the American Revolution was not because of the British rule? And the Civil War was not because of the southern states leaving the union? Isn't that what I was replying to about history?
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 1 year ago
Reply to MrsPresident
The government isn't taxing us to death.
The government isn't taxing us to death.
You don't know your history either, the taxes were not near what we are taxed now.
The bills passed for stimulus will do little or nothing for the economy. The money would of been better spent for tax cuts for individuals and business or checks to taxpayers which would of been $35,000-40,000.
Instead the taxpayers, thier children and maybe their children will be paying for these pork ridden, full of payoffs, worthless bills
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to MrsPresident
Well technically shouldn't it be a demonstration akin to the civil war demonstrations since they are … Show full comment
Well technically shouldn't it be a demonstration akin to the civil war demonstrations since they are … Show full comment
The government isn't taxing us to death.
MrsPresident 1 year ago
Reply to -save the US-
by the way, did you fail history in school? because it shows..
by the way, did you fail history in school? because it shows..
Well technically shouldn't it be a demonstration akin to the civil war demonstrations since they are protesting our government instead of the crown. It shouldn't be a revolution because we are not fighting some foreign entity that wants to have immediate control over our state of affairs.
-save the US- (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to EmilyR
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
by the way, did you fail history in school? because it shows..
-save the US- (Republican) - 1 year ago
Reply to EmilyR
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
omg theyre taking the cue from the founders of this nation! read your history book!
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 1 year ago
Reply to EmilyR
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful pr … Show full comment
We are taking our cues from the Founding Fathers of our country. Apparently you don't know them.
EmilyR 1 year ago
I don't share the sentiment, but I have to hand it to these folks for their creative and colorful protest tactics.
Are they taking their cues from the anti-corporate globalization movement? hahaha
hepsy 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
Thats good, starting one with help which abounds for this cause is better, be proactive.
Thats good, starting one with help which abounds for this cause is better, be proactive.
I'm in the phase of proactively feeding the cash eaters. After they're well fed, then I want to try being just a gopher for someone else being proactive.
I want a dramatic tea party, like that other one.
Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 1 year ago
Reply to hepsy
I'm IN the USA! :/ The 50th state, since 1959, only 141 years after Illinois. I'll send tea bags, … Show full comment
I'm IN the USA! :/ The 50th state, since 1959, only 141 years after Illinois. I'll send tea bags, … Show full comment
Thats good, starting one with help which abounds for this cause is better, be proactive.
hepsy 1 year ago
Reply to Good Ole Boy
There's a spot on the page that shows how to get one started. Either do that or move to the USA. :)
There's a spot on the page that shows how to get one started. Either do that or move to the USA. :)
I'm IN the USA! :/
The 50th state, since 1959, only 141 years after Illinois.
I'll send tea bags, and sign the petion. Doesn't that count?
1 - 22 / 22
SPREAD THE WORD