22-03-2002 23:22									#121
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The CSA didn't form until well after secession - and the second a state seceded it ceased to be bound. I thought you were a history major?

MrFun's QUOTE:
AFTER the completion of secession, the Confederate states were not bound by Union laws obviously. BUT DURING the process of initial secession, they were violating the law that says "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation
END OF QUOTE

Note the words "after the completion of secession, the Confederate states . . . . . .
Where did I say that the Confederacy was formed immediately??

And yes, I am a history major -- A's and B+'s in all my courses, and I do independent reading in my area of interest.

Don't put words in my mouth, David, and I won't put words in your mouth.

	23-03-2002 00:02									#122
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

But the "process of secession" was just that - the process of secession. No State signed a treaty or entered into an alliance or confederation while it was still a State. Therefore no State violated the Constitution, particularly the part alluded to earlier.

	23-03-2002 02:33									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I see secession and confederation as two concepts that are directly, and closely related to one another in the case of the Southern Confederacy.

In essence, the Southern states had to secede before creating a separate confederacy. So in that aspect, they did violate the constitutional law.

To create a separate confederation is the same as seceding in my opinion -- even if the OFFICIAL confederation government was not formed immediately after secession.

	23-03-2002 02:58									#124
	Put an end to popups!

quote: In essence, the Southern states had to secede before creating a separate confederacy. So in that aspect, they did violate the constitutional law.

Of course they had to secede before establishing the CSA - anything else would have been illegal. Once they secede, they are no longer bound by previous restrictions.

quote: To create a separate confederation is the same as seceding in my opinion -- even if the OFFICIAL confederation government was not formed immediately after secession.

So if the State of Texas and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were to secede tomorrow, they would have formed a union of their own just on virtue of having seceded? What kind of logic is that?

	23-03-2002 06:27									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To secede, means you separate. And after seceding, if you want to function separately from whatever nation you seceded from, you need to form your own government.

	23-03-2002 11:27									#126
	Remove this text

quote: To secede, means you separate. And after seceding, if you want to function separately from whatever nation you seceded from, you need to form your own government.

Point A: Sure, but once you secede you aren't bound by US law at any point - your own government has nothing to do with it.

Point B: The State governments already existed.

	24-03-2002 20:44									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So what if blacks supported the measures? Before such measures were immorally forced in, their opinion was irrelevant.

Blacks' opinions were irrelevant to the south withes and the shouth withes' opinions were irrelevant to the unionists.

As an european, I am amused to see howsame amercans look at their Constitution as a 'holy book'.
"It's uncontitutional that the unionists impose their views on us, but it's contitutional that we unslave people!."


"Curat constitutional, da' umfla-l!" (quote from romanian writer Caragiale - "A lost letter")
("Clear constitutional, but arrest him!")