Possible Montana Secession?

Beeecause.. and I'm just GUESSING here...

Using this line in the Constutition here
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Click to expand...

And after this:

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.
Click to expand...

And since the capital is in Richmond...
... one just WONDERS
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Ahh, you understand that the slaves in the north were not released!

So, the war was about southern slaves but not northern slaves. :confused:
Click to expand...

No. At first it was simply that they secedding, but Lincoln did opt to refuse the Crittenden CompromiseWP
(They however did seccede over the growing encroachment they felt of the federal goverment, especially Lincoln going lol,no to slavery)

As it went on, Lincoln eventually did decide it was more than just preserving the Union:

. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Click to expand...
Src: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

However, the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a moral gimmick - it's why that was aimed at the slaveholding states. However, there is plenty of evidence that the border states would have been held to the same standards of requiring passage of the 13-15th amendments weret hey to refuse.

(Side note: The CSA was founded on 'states rights' but Davis also tried to assert the 'federal' branch of the CSA's supremecy many times - caused a lot of internecine squabbling, espically with the NC governor.)
 
Last edited:
Tokorona said:
Beeecause.. and I'm just GUESSING here...

Using this line in the Constutition here


And after this:



And since the capital is in Richmond...
... one just WONDERS
Click to expand...


Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


This circumstance seems recently familiar.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


This circumstance seems recently familiar.
Click to expand...

Because Virginia seceded in April 1861 and had joined the insurrection.

Doesn't seem in the least recently familiar.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because VA seceded from the Union before it was attacked? According to a civil war timeline, VA seceded on April 17th, 1861. As far as I can determine, the first battle that occurred in VA did not take place until June 3, 1861.

http://americancivilwar.com/tl/tl1861.html

So, it appears that well over a month passed between the time VA seceded and the time any military action took place against it, so I don't see what the problem is.

Or do you not consider secession an act of insurrection for which military action is authorized under Article I, Section 8?
 
dudalb said:
Why do Libertarians seem to have such a soft spot for the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

Especially since states rights contributed to the defeat of the South. They didn't have a strong central government so the Confederate states were always bickering over supplying troops and who would pay for what.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Doublecheck your links mijo, I think those say the opposite of what you say they say.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible, but I think that I am still correct in my understanding that the Haire decision assumes that the Enabling Act is a contract in order to find the Montana Constitution (or at least the Montana Supreme Court's interpretation thereof) in breach of contract. I did not review the Rickert decision as thoroughly so I might be wrong in my interpretation of it. Any correction would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Virginia and South Carolina are different States.
Click to expand...

So in other words they where not both part of the same nation the CSA? Or when a nation attacks you, you are limited to responding to the districts that attacked?


Wait a minuite why am I bothering to argue with this troll?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So in other words they where not both part of the same nation the CSA? Or when a nation attacks you, you are limited to responding to the districts that attacked?


Wait a minuite why am I bothering to argue with this troll?
Click to expand...

I don't know... we don't even have the writer's strike as an excuse anymore.:jaw-dropp
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why was Virginia invaded?
Click to expand...

Because Virginia joined the Confederacy in the aftermath of the Ft. Sumter battle (after Lincoln called for troops to suppress the insurrection). By joining the side of the insurrectionsists, Virginia rendered itself also in insurrection.
 
For Jerome's Continuing Education

I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History - Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben
 
BenBurch said:
If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. Libertarians do like to wallow in historical revisionism.

Arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery is like arguing that World War II was not about Hitler.
 
BenBurch said:
I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History - Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben
Click to expand...

I also highly recommend anything from the Teaching Company. I have purchased many courses from them and they have all been excellent.

They also run very good sales now and then, so the $250 audio may go on sale for 50-70% off the list price.
 
BenBurch said:
I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History - Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben
Click to expand...


I do appreciate the link for the info. I choose not to pay for propaganda. I would listen for free, just not pay.
 
Back to the OP, what's the issue here? Montana's constitution guarantees the individual right to bear arms. If the U.S. constitution does not, how does that violate Montana's constitution in any way? It seems the ruling in and of itself would not be grounds for secession (assuming Montana's premise is valid), only attempts to pass a federal ban on individual gun ownership, which would itself be constitutionally questionable.

Since Montana has one of the highest ratios of federal money received to taxes collected, I say let them go anyway.
 
AoS: Technically speaking, if the federal ban is constutional, Montana's constutition does not have the authority to say they're wrong.

However, you can get gay marriage ins ome states and it's not valid in others even with full faith and credit.. so I really don't know how that'd work.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do appreciate the link for the info. I choose not to pay for propaganda. I would listen for free, just not pay.
Click to expand...

Just curious, are you saying:

1) Anything from the teaching company is propaganda?
Or
2) Anything from the listed author is propaganda?
Or
3) Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion on the civil war is propaganda?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom