Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#146 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
Lincoln was elected democratically and the south left democratically, why is one okay but not the other?
#161 to #146 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
Because a person becoming president is not treason, whereas breaking binding oaths to a government and seceding is.
#165 to #161 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
Might want to brush up on your 1800's law there anon.
User avatar #160 to #146 - Turmoil (04/21/2013) [-]
But the south did not leave democratically, the other half of the states did not want that. The constitution every state agreed to and signed was a binding contract, you cannot just exit a contract without consent from all others on it.
#164 to #160 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
There was no law preventing the states from seceeding if they chose at the time, the south held a democratic vote to seceede and it passed.
#185 to #164 - Uranium (04/21/2013) [-]
Yes there was but it wasn't in the constitution it was in the articles of confederation which is still binding even today just many of the thing in it are superseded by the constitution but secession isn't one of them only state that succeeded legally was Texas it was except but after repatriating in 1865 they gave up their independence (many Texans forget that but it was part of the surrender at Appomattox)
#194 to #185 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
The articles of the confederation were abandoned in 1786, the constitution thereafter had no laws governing secession.
#196 to #194 - Uranium (04/21/2013) [-]
Sorry to tell you but in this very specific instance thats not true.
#199 to #196 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
The constitution created after 1786 superseded the articles, and only after the civil war did the supreme court make a ruling on secession.
#200 to #199 - Uranium (04/21/2013) [-]
Using the Articles of Confederation and the Whiskey Rebellion as precedent
User avatar #379 to #200 - Turmoil (04/22/2013) [-]
You are correct despite what the anon says, I simply used the constitution because I'm sure most people don't know what the articles of confederation are. Either way a state cannot actually secede, Texas included.
#204 to #200 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
The whiskey rebellion only refers challenging the government by extraconstitutional means, there was no court ruling on secession at the time, and nothing preventing it in the constitution.
 Friends (0)