Legality of Secession

[subdjoe]

I suspect that this has maybe come up once or twice in this forum. Maybe.  But, being a bit on the lazy side, and not really wanting to ressurect a 6 month old thread, here are a few interesting links"

http://www.secessionist.us/legality_of_secession.htm
"President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:
"The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not 'necessary and proper for carrying into execution' any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
In a March 15, 1833 letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

http://www.daveblackonline.com/was_secession_treason.htm

[Ga.windbreak]

I don't think you will fine 1 out of 100 who would argue that secession is illegal. Where the rubber hits the road is, quite frankly, are you willing to give up your life for the cause? In 1860, when liberty and freedom was still fresh in everyones mind and heart, you had over half of the male population in the Southern states willing to die to keep out the invaders. I fear that isn't true today, I've read its the 3 %ers who are willing, most will sit on the sidelines either in fear of Big Brother or dying. I've read that in our fight for freedom in 1776 the numbers were 33 % pro, 33 % fence sitters, and 33 % loyal british subjects.

I'm not worried about winning in court, hell the goment was to skerd to put Jeff Davis on trial, the question is will all those gun owners pick'em up or lay'em down?

[subdjoe]

Out here in CA you find a lot who will argue that it was illegal for the south to leave the Union.  And then, in the next breath say that CA should leave it.  Go figure. 

I don't think it would so much be a matter of finding people who would give their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor if it became necessary. It would be a matter of, would the members of the US military be able to pull the trigger on their friends and family?  (I can see that there would be some minor clashes, and some exchange of small arms, but I can't see an armored unit firing on a modern American city, nor can I see air support being called in on, oh, Fresno, Redding, or San Francisco) And, would there be the political will to force states to remain in the Union?  Look at the hew and cry over just a relative handfull of deaths in Iraq.  Can you imagine the outrage if another Sharpsburg were to happen? 

[Rustyinfla]

  Hey Joe,

    If you guys out the in Ca decide to secede will you please take Mass. with you.

[subdjoe]

  Hey Joe,

    If you guys out the in Ca decide to secede will you please take Mass. with you.

Hell no!  We have enough goofy gun laws here as it is. 

IF CA did leave, I can see it breaking up into 3 to 5 different entities.  Southern CA, below the Tehachapies. The Coast, from Ventura north to at least the Golden Gate, and just the belt west of the crest of the Coast Ranges - it might take in the entire coast up to Crescent City.  Central Valley - which would be just about everything else. Unless there was a N. CA - N of SF, West of I-5 up to the Oregon border.  Or maybe something that take up the Trinity range, say N. & W of Redding, and including the Modoc Plateau.

[Gary G]

Have y'all heard of the Rose Revolution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4532539.stm

[SouthernByGrace]

Great thread, Joe.
And you're right, I covered this (rather well, if I do say so myself     ), in the thread, Secession: Answering The Critics. The information there, as well as here, prove beyond the shadow of ANY doubt that secession IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

But, Hey, the more information we can show, the better proven is the point.
Sounds good to me. 

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[Rustyinfla]

   For as long as I can remember there has been a member of the Florida State Legislature that has introduced a bill to secede at the start of every session.