In a message dated 07/25/2003 9:16:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mocsa@earthlink.net writes: > And it was Congress that gave them the > privileges and recognition of being a State of equal standing. Lincoln's > stance, and I assume it is now national policy, is that > secession can only be permitted if that State gets consent from Congress > (who represents the people of the U.S.). Congress was the > one to admit it, so Congress must be the one to omit it. > > The right to secede predates Congress. It is a God given right, it is as > natural to human beings as breathing, to not suffer undue and unwarranted > oppression, not to mention a primary right that we established (IN WRITTEN FORM) in > the beginning of the thirteen original Colonies. What is Congress but our > own delegates, representatives of their own people, and not an autonomous > entity, with ideas of it's own. Did England give us permission to secede, l think > not, isn't that why we had a revolutionary war? Secession can never be > something that is "permitted." The Colonies assembled and threw off the tyranny of > Great Britain; > Taken from the DOI; <> <<<<<<<<<We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of > America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the > world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of > the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these > United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that > they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all > political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought > to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have > full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, > and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right > do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the > protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our > Fortunes and our sacred Honor.>>>>>>>>>> > > Well, this is what the South did when they seceded form the Union, only to > be met by Criminal opposition, not unlike the same opposition that the > Colonies were confronted with. > Taken from.... South Carolina Declaration of Succession December 24, 186 <> <<<<<Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, > and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was > signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the > Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty > acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode > Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, > Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, > to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as > such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the > government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part > thereof." Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, > namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to > abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was > instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was > the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a > FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE. They end their appeal and rights to govern themselves with; <<<<<<We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. Carolyn l don't understand the remark.. "The one with the bigger stick wins." Perhaps you got your mailing lists mixed up??

The Case Against Secession It was an article of faith among advocates of the "Lost Cause" school of Civil War history that Southern secession was a legitimate act and that the North had no right to prevent the South from leaving the Union. The view that the South should have been permitted to depart peacefully resonates today among several disparate groups on the political right: the "neo-Confederates," the heirs of the Lost Cause school, who see the South as the exemplar of everything decent in Western civilization; some Christians, who see the supposed virtues of the ante-bellum South as preferable to the crass materialism of the commercial society they believe was created by the Union victory in the Civil War; and libertarians, who, lament the growth of the federal government and its incursions into the private sphere. For many such conservatives, Abraham Lincoln, far from being a great statesman who re-founded America on the basis of the original principles of the American Revolution, is a villain. By using force to prevent the peaceful exodus of the Southern states, Lincoln caused a bloody and unnecessary war. While might was on the side of the North, right was on the side of those who wished to secede. But this is bad history that lends itself to worse constitutional theory. When the Neo-Confederates and their libertarian friends make Lincoln out to be a scoundrel who plunged America into an avoidable war, they ignore the fact that his views on Union and the nature of republican government differed not at all from those of such luminaries as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Webster. They also ignore the practical reasons why the president of the United States could not permit the Union to be torn asunder. Far from avoiding war, the breakup of the Union would have meant perpetual conflict on the North American continent. [This is from a very long article, well worth the time to read and consider.] http://www.claremont.org/writings/000710owens.html Sharon

> l don't understand the remark.. "The one with the bigger stick wins." > Perhaps you got your mailing lists mixed up?? Yes, it is a God given right if the established procedures are followed. Obviously the North and South did not agree on the procedures. There was Federal installations and property that was confiscated. There was also legal technicalities over treaties, expenditures from the U.S. treasury. And there was the issue of Southern Unionist who wanted to retain U.S. citizenship. The fact is Congress before and at time of the Secession crisis was disfunctional. The heated debates over slavery made it impossible to fairly discuss procedures of secession. Heck, they were carrying pistols and clubs into Congress. If that is not disfunctional, I don't know what is. Regarding the big stick, I meant military might. I am not saying I agree with Lincoln's way of dealing with the crisis. I think both sides screwed up big time. The Confederates biggest mistake was firing on Ft. Sumter. That confirmed that revolution was under way and ended all hope (if there was any) for peaceful resolution. --Scott Williams