Nonsense

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Will the Federal Government allow states to secede from the union?

Has any state or group of states tried to do that? How did it turn out?

Would the Federal Government go to war to prevent a state from seceding? Didn't that happen once?

It did not happen. That's why the statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are being taken down and the history books are being corrected.
W.S.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

It did not happen. That's why the statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are being taken down and the history books are being corrected.
W.S.

Or maybe it was the creation of the statues of Lee, Davis, and others that was erasing history? Citizens erected statues of traitors to the United States. Who does that? I keep looking for the Benedict Arnold statues, I can never find any

[codeman671]

I can't believe this is even being discussed....

[Descant]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Or maybe it was the creation of the statues of Lee, Davis, and others that was erasing history? Citizens erected statues of traitors to the United States. Who does that? I keep looking for the Benedict Arnold statues, I can never find any

The Boot Monument is an American Revolutionary War memorial located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army, but does not name him.

[tis]

If I remember correctly Frye Island in Maine was able to secede from the town. I wonder how they are doing.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

If I remember correctly Frye Island in Maine was able to secede from the town. I wonder how they are doing.

Ceding from a town or a State had much less a consequence than ceding from the federal government. The Weirs was going to cede from Laconia, but quickly found their real problems were internal and being projected.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

The Boot Monument is an American Revolutionary War memorial located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army, but does not name him.

Exactly--to those who love the United States, he's an embarrassment

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Or maybe it was the creation of the statues of Lee, Davis, and others that was erasing history? Citizens erected statues of traitors to the United States. Who does that? I keep looking for the Benedict Arnold statues, I can never find any

Wasn’t renewed citizenship extended to Lee and Davis after they surrendered? Part of Lincoln’s binding up wounds doctrine? Why wouldn’t statues be erected to great American generals? They didn’t try to overthrow the United States, they tried to secede from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

The South attacked the US.
And several of those generals had sworn an oath to the US Constitution while at West Point.

We shouldn't try to rewrite history to make a few States feel better about what happened.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife

Wasn’t renewed citizenship extended to Lee and Davis after they surrendered? Part of Lincoln’s binding up wounds doctrine? Why wouldn’t statues be erected to great American generals? They didn’t try to overthrow the United States, they tried to secede from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

As John pointed out, they attacked the US--that is treason.

But also perplexed by "great generals". They lost. Are there any other people who started a war, lost, and then were honored as great?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

As John pointed out, they attacked the US--that is treason.

But also perplexed by "great generals". They lost. Are there any other people who started a war, lost, and then were honored as great?

So I guess then according to your measuring stick there was never a great Native American Indian Chief that ever lived nor should be memorized in any way because after all they started plenty of wars and lost? Huh...

Call it what you will, the battle between the south and the north was not about over throwing the government. The Confederacy sought a peace with the union yet stood firm of its "legitimate" claims to independence, ultimately being pushed into having to defend it. That is a well known fact and is not treason.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So I guess then according to your measuring stick there was never a great Native American Indian Chief that ever lived nor should be memorized in any way because after all they started plenty of wars and lost? Huh...

Call it what you will, the battle between the south and the north was not about over throwing the government. The Confederacy sought a peace with the union yet stood firm of its "legitimate" claims to independence, ultimately being pushed into having to defend it. That is a well known fact and is not treason.

Exactly. SC seceded in 1860, followed by other states in 1861. As they formed their new government, they took over various government facilities, mostly peacefully, I believe. No skirmishes like we see in our big cities today. Later in 1861, the north "started" the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

Exactly. SC seceded in 1860, followed by other states in 1861. As they formed their new government, they took over various government facilities, mostly peacefully, I believe. No skirmishes like we see in our big cities today. Later in 1861, the north "started" the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.

Actually, it was the south that fired the first shot on Ft Sumpter.

That said, who fired the first shot isn't what set the whole thing in motion. It was a decision by the federal government to create a policy that directly affected the livelihood of many. At the time this was considered unacceptable by those in the south. I believe to this day slavery was an abomination and needed to be ended. Was fighting a civil war over it the right resolution? Hard to say but history is what it is!

[Descant]

Yeah. I misstated. It's amazing how war has changed from masses of men in open fields to simply blowing things up with airplanes and missiles.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Actually, it was the south that fired the first shot on Ft Sumpter.

That said, who fired the first shot isn't what set the whole thing in motion. It was a decision by the federal government to create a policy that directly affected the livelihood of many. At the time this was considered unacceptable by those in the south. I believe to this day slavery was an abomination and needed to be ended. Was fighting a civil war over it the right resolution? Hard to say but history is what it is!

As you point out, it was the South that fired the first shots.

But there was not "a decision by the federal government" to abolish slavery at that point. Certain states announced succession on fear of such a decision, then Lincoln decided to resupply the US fort, and it was this decision (to resupply the fort) that led to the war. The Emancipation Proclamation came several years later.

I agree it's not really fair to Monday Morning Quarterback something like this. But like you, I think slavery was completely reprehensible.

On a personal level--my family goes back hundreds of years in the deep South. I don't think my ancestors owned slaves, but I know they fought for the South in the Civil War. It always puzzles me when people today somehow try to make excuses for the South (not saying you've done this), stuff like "I'm proud of where I come from...it's about tradition...". A person can be grateful to their ancestors and also readily agree that in some ways they were really f'ed up. Imagine a whole society where "livelihood" depended on slaves

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So I guess then according to your measuring stick there was never a great Native American Indian Chief that ever lived nor should be memorized in any way because after all they started plenty of wars and lost? Huh...

Call it what you will, the battle between the south and the north was not about over throwing the government. The Confederacy sought a peace with the union yet stood firm of its "legitimate" claims to independence, ultimately being pushed into having to defend it. That is a well known fact and is not treason.

Once a military officer swears an oath... that makes it treason.

[Loub52]

This thread is getting to be allot. And not allot relevant to the lakes region.

[John Mercier]

Really? Because the sponsors of the bill are the delegation from the Lakes Region.

[Loub52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Really? Because the sponsors of the bill are the delegation from the Lakes Region.

Quite a stretch.

[John Mercier]

Sponsored by Sylvia, and endorsed in a public letter by Howard.

They lead the delegation, and only hold their leadership seats because the other members supported them for such.

It isn't like we have seen any public letters from the delegation speaking negatively about it.

[Loub52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Sponsored by Sylvia, and endorsed in a public letter by Howard.

They lead the delegation, and only hold their leadership seats because the other members supported them for such.

It isn't like we have seen any public letters from the delegation speaking negatively about it.

Given the lack of a “politics” forum on winnipesaukee.com , I propose some other place for it.

[John Mercier]

I think secession is less about politics... as it really doesn't matter what party proposes it or why... and more about the effects it could have on the local area.

It isn't much different than discussing any other proposal before government.

[Fred W]

Hey we made the Boston globe!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fm7?li=BBnb7Kz

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Fred W

Hey we made the Boston globe!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fm7?li=BBnb7Kz

It's more far reaching than the Boston Globe. They got the report from msn.com news.

[garysanfran]

A slow news day spawns stories like this.

[Bear Islander]

In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

[fatlazyless]

These state reps in the NH legislature have a better chance to re-litigate the July 2, 1832 to August 5, 1835 ..... Republic of Indian Stream ..... make it independent and detached from New Hampshire .... this was somewhere, way-the-heck up north .... oh wait, it already is basically independent and detached from New Hampshire ..... ......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream ..... and improve the trails, THERE, to make it a snowmobile & atv GO-TO spot ...... just show them that snowmobile & atv money!

www.laughingsquid.com/republic-of-Indian-Stream/ .... Republic of Indian Stream ...... video .... 4:33

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Once a military officer swears an oath... that makes it treason.

That's an interesting thing because back in those days the armed forces were much different. Many of the armed forces were decentralized militias that were under local not federal control per say.

Take Robert E Lee for instance, yes he was part of the union army early on in his career, but by the time he had become a confederate general he had tendered his resignation as a union officer and was a private citizen. Therefore, he was under no oath to defend the US Constitution but even if he was, the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery did not come into existence until 1865, the civil war was fought between 1861 and 1865 prior to this being in place.

Keep in mind the oath that all service members take, first and foremost... will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In the case of this, the battle ensued over something that was not constitutional, therefore it could be argued that under the UCMJ orders to fight over and enforce some idea that had yet to be established could in theory be considered an unlawful order. Even if it comes from the president himself. Although it happens all too often today, the executive branch of government does not have the authority to make laws. While what Lincoln did was a noble cause I don't believe he had the jurisdiction to make the emancipation proclamation binding or federal law. Even at that the war was already well underway when that was put out in 1863.

It's a fascinating piece of history for sure.... and in the end the right thing happened. The means to get there is an unfortunate and disgraceful loss of lives. Hopefully that will never happen again.

[Lakegeezer]

Interesting book from a historian of the Civil War. Heather Cox Richardson https://www.amazon.com/How-South-Won...dp/B0862GM7HF/

In addition to her book, she posts almost daily and frequently draws parallels from the mid 1800's to today.

As I recall from the book, some of Lincoln's urgency was the expansion west and the fight was to ensure new western states didn't adopt slavery. It was a federal vs state's rights issue, drawing some of the parallels with today. Also interesting in her book is the reversal of party positions.

As a purple state, any discussion of NH succeeding is nonsense, as the title of this note states, but it makes for good winter jawboning.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

In the case of this, the battle ensued over something that was not constitutional, therefore it could be argued that under the UCMJ orders to fight over and enforce some idea that had yet to be established could in theory be considered an unlawful order. Even if it comes from the president himself. Although it happens all too often today, the executive branch of government does not have the authority to make laws. While what Lincoln did was a noble cause I don't believe he had the jurisdiction to make the emancipation proclamation binding or federal law. Even at that the war was already well underway when that was put out in 1863.

The battle did not ensue over slavery, although that undoubtedly was on everybody's mind. The battle ensued over Lincoln's decision to resupply a US fort after the state that the fort was in seceded from the US, I'm sure you'd agree that the states had no right to secede unilaterally, and certainly no right to attack the US army

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

The battle did not ensue over slavery, although that undoubtedly was on everybody's mind. The battle ensued over Lincoln's decision to resupply a US fort after the state that the fort was in seceded from the US, I'm sure you'd agree that the states had no right to secede unilaterally, and certainly no right to attack the US army

No the war didn't start specifically over slavery there were at the time a number of differences between north and south at the time which were creating a significant amount of tension between both regions, state's rights and slavery for sure were first a foremost. Indeed the first battle ensued over the resupply of the fort, however that move at face value was provocative to say the least considering that the north seemed to want to impose their way of thinking on those in the south when at the time there was such a disparity between the two where the north was neck deep in an economy based on industry and manufacturing while the south was mainly farmers. As it is today, those that live in the city, work a professional job or whatever cannot relate to those that ranch or farm for a living and vice versa. There are competing interests now as there was then. Call slavery for instance what you want, at that time, the abolishment of slavery had a direct impact to the farmers in the south who relied heavily on basically free labor and had no appetite for the federal government to come in and tell them what they can or cannot do.

Far as whether I think the states had a right to secede unilaterally, there was and even to this day any specific law that forbids it. The federal government was established not as an overload to the individual states and in fact was at its creation limited in its jurisdiction which remains in effect today all though you'd never know it. This is why the states govern themselves, have their own unique laws, constitutions and in a sense should remain autonomous in that regard. At the federal level - the grand idea was to establish a government that could provide logistics on behalf of the individual states where it made sense to do so, such as a combined effort in providing for national defense, or a centralized money\banking system and court system. That has been so perverted today that at the federal level it has amassed significant control and power over the states far beyond where I think the founding fathers ever imagined was possible.

Finally did the south have a "right" to attack the north? Well consider this, at the time the federal government was to many in the south a tyrannical government and thus yes the constitution protects the ability of the people to defend themselves against that, it's in the second amendment. To some they were heros, to others they were traitors, the only difference as we look back on that today is opinions are forged in whether or not you personally agreed with or not the premise the south had in mind as they revolted. That bias is human nature is it not?

[John Mercier]

That is sort of a rewrite of history. Lee's oath at West Point leading to his commission as an officer would not be the one used today for enlisted volunteers. Lee was indicted for treason by a grand jury. There was debate if his position had resolved oath to allegiance to the US... which today is written into the West Point oath.

Treason is simply defined as providing support or comfort to the enemy. Once they attacked the fort, an act of war, even verbal support was an act of treason.

The Confederate States of America Constitution appeared almost identical to the US Constitution until it reached Article One Section Nine.

As for unilateral secession, the US Constitution specifically places questions of constitutionally under Article Three Section Two... something NH agreed to.

The CACR was not for a unilateral transgression, nor suggested attacking any federal installation in NH or even any violent action. The lessons of history were taken into account... the scope of unintended consequences for an action of little resolve were not.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That is sort of a rewrite of history. Lee's oath at West Point leading to his commission as an officer would not be the one used today for enlisted volunteers. Lee was indicted for treason by a grand jury. There was debate if his position had resolved oath to allegiance to the US... which today is written into the West Point oath.

Treason is simply defined as providing support or comfort to the enemy. Once they attacked the fort, an act of war, even verbal support was an act of treason.

The Confederate States of America Constitution appeared almost identical to the US Constitution until it reached Article One Section Nine.

As for unilateral secession, the US Constitution specifically places questions of constitutionally under Article Three Section Two... something NH agreed to.

The CACR was not for a unilateral transgression, nor suggested attacking any federal installation in NH or even any violent action. The lessons of history were taken into account... the scope of unintended consequences for an action of little resolve were not.

Interesting as I read Article 3 section 2 which basically establishes the jurisdiction of the federal judicial system in particular the US supreme court in that it has the power to settle disputes between states. What does that have to do with secession?

I think the more applicable thing to look at is the 10th amendment which specifically exists to LIMIT the power of the federal government. Nowhere in the constitution is there any language that states the federal government has any right to govern, control or restrict a state's right to for lack of better words sovereignty including participation in the "union" unless explicitly granted by the states either individually or as a whole. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Now I am no legal mind or heavy weight by any stretch but that seems pretty clear to me.

[John Mercier]

''The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;''
''to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;''

A legal debate on the US Constitution is the purview of SCOTUS.
And since Secession from the United States would make the United States a party to the case... also SCOTUS.

The CSA was upset that Article One Section Nine provides for the US Congress to limit the ''importation'' of persons after 1808, and the interstate commerce clause in Section Eight provides that the US Congress could limit the movement across State lines of the same. The CSA Constitution worked on limiting any effect those clauses may have on slavery.

The US Constitution also did not provide that any group or person, regardless of the title ''State'' could attack a federal military installation for any cause.

Had they attempted what was being proposed in NH, it would fall to a ruling of SCOTUS... and a bilateral agreement for the separation, but with the unintended consequences that I pointed out, and many others that would need resolution.

[Crusty]

I've been following this thread, and I'm sure that Smith Point Boater is concerned that the topic has wandered off subject.

My personal concern with secession is that, if NH skiing were to require international travel, frequent ski weekends would become impossible.

Fortunately today, I saw a video that simplifies considerations of where to ski. With my problem solved, you secessionists may proceed with my blessing.

https://www.facebook.com/donnie.phil...59747377377030

[John Mercier]

It never wandered very far off topic.
The discussion is about the history of secession to determine whether it was plausible. For NH, it simply isn't.

The mechanism for peaceful secession was followed... but the promoters forgot to prepare a pathway forward.

That is not unusual in NH.

A growing concern underlying most of what occurs is political in nature... but both sides have gleamed it. It is largely scapegoating the federal government for the failure to act at the State, county, local, and individual levels. Something that the general population is not really willing to do.

[smith point boater]

It may not have fully wandered off topic but definitely took a stroll thru history and areas of the constitution. My only concern is that this secession foolishness stops and we can get back to discussing topics regarding the lake, boating jet skiing etc

[John Mercier]

I doubt that it will end... but at least be set aside for the time being.

[Descant]

In my mind a plan better than secession would be for the six New England states to have a more united front. With 12 Senators, and
the large number of Reps from all six, we could carry some weight against the big states of NY and California. Unfortunately, secession is perhaps the simpler task, and we know that won't work. In the current Congress, we should be doing a better job of aligning states with like priorities instead of political party alignments.

[MAXUM]

Well the theory of doing this has been around for a while, it does come down to what is practical. NH being as small as it is, lacks the ability to really be self sufficient. The local economy is not sufficiently diverse or for that matter plentiful enough hence the reason why this is fundamentally difficult. Now if all the citizens were willing to take the chance and also lifestyle hit then anything is possible. I certainly can relate to the select centralization of power in DC and how obnoxious some of it is.

Now on the flip side, Texas has also a number of times historically tried to do this, and simply put it could very easily be self sufficient. It has a GDP that rivals or exceeds other sovereign countries and really has no need for the Federal Government at all. Some of the challenges apply but if there was anyplace that could do it, I'd say Texas for sure would be well positioned to do so. Whether or not it actually makes sense at least in the case of Texas is more of a philosophical one.

Same can be said for other states as well, however for places like California, the place would for certain be a third world country, run by a crazy loon of a dictator, not that it isn't already.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well the theory of doing this has been around for a while, it does come down to what is practical. NH being as small as it is, lacks the ability to really be self sufficient. The local economy is not sufficiently diverse or for that matter plentiful enough hence the reason why this is fundamentally difficult. Now if all the citizens were willing to take the chance and also lifestyle hit then anything is possible. I certainly can relate to the select centralization of power in DC and how obnoxious some of it is.

Now on the flip side, Texas has also a number of times historically tried to do this, and simply put it could very easily be self sufficient. It has a GDP that rivals or exceeds other sovereign countries and really has no need for the Federal Government at all. Some of the challenges apply but if there was anyplace that could do it, I'd say Texas for sure would be well positioned to do so. Whether or not it actually makes sense at least in the case of Texas is more of a philosophical one.

Same can be said for other states as well, however for places like California, the place would for certain be a third world country, run by a crazy loon of a dictator, not that it isn't already.

So what you are saying is Texans are a bit lazy?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So what you are saying is Texans are a bit lazy?

Not at all. What I am saying is that Texas is an example of a state that has everything it needs to be independent IF it wanted to do so. NH realistically does not.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Not at all. What I am saying is that Texas is an example of a state that has everything it needs to be independent IF it wanted to do so. NH realistically does not.

Except for the fact that their electrical grid is strung together with bubble gum and duct tape...

[Woodsy]

The proposed bill is an exercise in futility... not going to happen. The back and forth discussions are pretty good though!

IMHO, NH might get enough "Free State" types to influence local politics... but that is about it!

Woodsy

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Except for the fact that their electrical grid is strung together with bubble gum and duct tape...

Probably a result of meeting federal standards....

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Probably a result of meeting federal standards....

They chose not to meet federal standards, so it cannot be the result of federal standards.