England secedes from EU. Why couldn't the South secede in 1861?

Bill said:
That fort was built after the war of 1812, the confederacy was not in existence until 1861... Killing American soldiers was an act of treason then, just as it would be considered today, Ya'll need to get over this......:palm:
Click to expand...

TDAK isn't the brightest racist we have here.
 
LOL, don't know him/her, but I can never understand why these ppl continue to dwell on it after all these years..
 
Bill said:
That fort was built after the war of 1812, the confederacy was not in existence until 1861... Killing American soldiers was an act of treason then, just as it would be considered today, Ya'll need to get over this......:palm:
Click to expand...

Get over it?? Yeah cause you know america was founded on secession and thus the South should have been allowed to secede. The constitution does not say anything about secession which means, by the tenth amendment, the states had the right to secede. The founding fathers took such a right for granted. THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Get over it?? Yeah cause you know america was founded on secession and thus the South should have been allowed to secede. The constitution does not say anything about secession which means, by the tenth amendment, the states had the right to secede. The founding fathers took such a right for granted. THINK
Click to expand...

If you could think you would not be a racist.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Get over it?? Yeah cause you know america was founded on secession and thus the South should have been allowed to secede. The constitution does not say anything about secession which means, by the tenth amendment, the states had the right to secede. The founding fathers took such a right for granted. THINK
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about how it was founded..

Perhaps a southern anchor baby could help shine a little light:

President Andrew Jackson, published his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, which made a case for the perpetuity of the Union; plus, he provided his views re the questions of "revolution" and "secession":[33]

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. [emphasis added] 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.[34]

The south already had an unfair advantage since the birth of the country & their leaving would have not just divided but destroyed the union... There were grumblings in other parts of the country as well~we would have turned into the Balkans........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top