After the Civil War, in addition to the thirteenth through fifteenth amendments, why was no amendment prohibiting secession (or addressing the issue, at least) passed? Was it just assumed that the war demonstrated well enough that secession was not a Good Idea™?
It was the opinion of the U.S. government at that time that the Confederacy’s secession was absoultely not legal from it’s inception. An amendment prohibiting secession would have lended credibility to the idea that the secession was somehow legal prior to the passage of that amendment. From their point of view, there was no loophole that needed to be closed.
Well of course the opinion of the entirely one sided U S Government claimed that the Southern States had no right to secede. Now explain why the Northeastern States claimed that THEY held that right ? A few years later a Middle Confederacy was threatened, those States claiming that THEY had that right. Many times secession was argued and not until just prior to the War to Deny Southern Independence did so called ’ loyalists ’ argue than no State then had that right. It smacks of the idea of Northern abolition wherein a slave owner can sell their slaves in areas where slavery exists in order to regain monetary investment, and then turn around ( within the space of a generation or so ) and insist that the buyer can not then have slaves. I just read an opinion of a New York lawyer that stated that according to the U S Supreme Court ( very one sided at the time ) and " the decision of the war "…( decided the right of secession )…I can not believe that an American would infer that might makes right…Perhaps Communism was right in Southeast Asia. Perhaps the U S government was right to exterminate approx. 17 millions of Native Americans.
Wow. Raising a zombie for the purposes of incoherence.
Well, zombies are known to eat… no, I can’t say it.
What I find interesting is that the original thread generated only 1 response. A good response, but usually this stuff generates all kinds of discussion.
Wow. Never heard that phrase before.
A Zombie! A very palpable (and confusing) Zombie.
The decision in Grant v. Lee (1865) determined that secession was not permitted.
May be the time frame. 2005 was prior to the Tea Party, which resurrected the idea of secession.
Ol Dave makes the point that after the Civil War, that there was a secessionist movement in the middle states. Is that true?
OlDave makes no such point. He babbles incoherently. Maybe he was referring to Texas. Who knows? All his post indicates is that “Drugs Are Bad.”
I’m assuming OIDave is talking about the Hartford Convention where the New England states discussed secession. However, the Southern states declared it treasonous and unconstitutional. The question of secession rests on whether a state thinks it can get something out of it.
Communism in SE Asia was kinda bad.
You shouldn’t kill native americans.
The war of Northen Aggression was inevitable.
No one cares about the Middle Confederacy.
Thread resurrection can be hilarious.
Get off my lawn.
eta: Something about brains.
Since zombie this has been raised pretty pointlessly, I’m going to close it.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator