Secession in California

[aspen]

Oh, the white people secede and it creates more welfare states. No kidding. Why? Because the white people arn't supporting the third world peoples any more. What a revelation that is. What would the third world people do without welfare state? All the more reason to secede.

Stranger

Have you been to the state of Jefferson? It is white welfare country.

 

[Taken]

Have you been to the state of Jefferson? It is white welfare country.

Ah the ignorance. Some people are clammoring they want to California land separated from the State of California, and Also to secede and Become a Welfare State.

First of all, California would have to CEDE, them their land, which simply means GIVE them land.

And secondly a SECESSION, is a State, withdrawing from the Federation.

Uh - the land would not BE a State!
A State must receive State-hood from the Federation before they Become a State.

And thus their intent would to become a State, so they could SECEDE from the Federation.

And yet they want to BE a Welfare State...
IOW, live off of a Government, that has NO JURISDICTION over them, because they were either never a State or Seceded from the Federation.

LOL -

Can we say moronic?

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Secession is not the same thing as dividing a State.

Secession is when a State attempts to withdraw from the Unitiy of the Federation.

Dividing of One State, does not mean, inclusion to withdraw from the Unitiy of the Federation. It simply means One State would become divided, and Two "individual" States would become part of the Unitiy of the Federation. Jurisdictional boundardies, would be changed. And Each individual State would have it's own governments, Constitution, laws, Governing powers, citizens, etc.



Yes.



No. It begins with what the People want.
There is no Legal status, until the State Legislature and Congress Agree such division will commence.



It's not about peacefully, but rather about protocol per the established Law.

The established Law is the US Constitution.
States can have their own Constitutions, which may not supersede the US Constitution.

God Bless,
Taken

I didn't say they were the same thing. They are similar in that both are legal in their time. They are similar in that both are provoked politically. But once the political and economic consequences were seen or will be seen, the wars begin. The Constitution meant nothing in 1861 till the powers against it changed it. How's that for 'protocol'?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Have you been to the state of Jefferson? It is white welfare country.

There is no state of Jefferson.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

There is no state of Jefferson.

Stranger

Not yet

 

[Taken]

I didn't say they were the same thing. They are similar in that both are legal in their time. They are similar in that both are provoked politically. But once the political and economic consequences were seen or will be seen, the wars begin.

The Constitution meant nothing in 1861

Wow.
Fascinating comment. Of course I disagree.

till the powers against it changed it. How's that for 'protocol'?

Um, IDK... what you mean...enlighten me to your meaning...

What exactly were the "powers" "against" that was written in the Constitution?

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Wow.
Fascinating comment. Of course I disagree.



Um, IDK... what you mean...enlighten me to your meaning...

What exactly were the "powers" "against" that was written in the Constitution?

God Bless,
Taken

The 'powers that be'were the northern industrialized states. The South was an agricultural economy and had slavery. Slavery was protected under the Constitution. Many in the north became abolitionists against slavery but the Constitution stood in their way. Thus they ignored it. Called it a covenant with hell and eventually forced the South to secede for its own good. The South seceded because their rights under the Constitution were being ignored.

The loss of the Southern states mean a loss of money and power and economic competition. Thus you had war. The South was defeated and after the war came the Reconstruction which of course involved the Reconstruction amendments. They were pushed through by forcing the Southern states to ratify them. Thus the Constitution was changed.

As I said, in 1861 the Constitution meant nothing.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

The 'powers that be'were the northern industrialized states. The South was an agricultural economy and had slavery. Slavery was protected under the Constitution. Many in the north became abolitionists against slavery but the Constitution stood in their way. Thus they ignored it.

Slavery was a State issue. There was no reason for the Federation to become involved.
The Constitution neither sanctioned or outlawed slavery.

Called it a covenant with hell and eventually forced the South to secede for its own good.

Covenant with Hell?
God sanctioned slavery, with conditions.

The South seceded because their rights under the Constitution were being ignored.

What rights were ignored?

The loss of the Southern states mean a loss of money and power and economic competition.

The loss of the Southern states meant detriment to the Country being unified.

Thus you had war.

The South proclaimed separation, then fired upon the Northern military, thus a declaration of war was invoked.

The South was defeated and after the war came the Reconstruction which of course involved the Reconstruction amendments.

They were pushed through by forcing the Southern states to ratify them. Thus the Constitution was changed.

Yes there were changes made to the Constitution. Which simply made People who were not citizens, of the Federation or the States, thereafter....by declaration they to be granted citizenship.

As I said, in 1861 the Constitution meant nothing.

Uh huh, I know, and disagreed.

There was a tiff going on, not much unlike when the colonies were ruled by Kings over seas. The South had Constitutional Rights to participate in the Federalist Government, and be represented, however, like with SEAS causing distance, so also was there great distance between the Southern States, and DC. IOW - Southern delegates traveling to DC, was not always meet or timely. Thus the result was them being out of the loop, feeling they were NOT represented, and their major revenue being Cotton and Tobacco, a lucrative
Income with overseas selling and trading, also required "import/export" taxiation due the Federation. Feeling not representated, the South decline to pay over import/export taxes on their goods. (Same as the colonists, stopped paying taxes to the King, feeling slighted in representation).

And like I said, Slavery was a State issue. Northern States did not particularly favor Slavery, or require it for production, yet the Souther States highly depended on Slavery to produce their major revenue crops.

Like I said, God sanctioned slavery, even putting His Own People in bondage. And yes there were conditions and protocol God set forth concerning another in bondage. Some in the South adhered to such conditions, some didn't. And not a surprise, since we already know, Some agree with Gods precepts and some do not.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Slavery was a State issue. There was no reason for the Federation to become involved.
The Constitution neither sanctioned or outlawed slavery.



Covenant with Hell?
God sanctioned slavery, with conditions.



What rights were ignored?



The loss of the Southern states meant detriment to the Country being unified.



The South proclaimed separation, then fired upon the Northern military, thus a declaration of war was invoked.





Yes there were changes made to the Constitution. Which simply made People who were not citizens, of the Federation or the States, thereafter....by declaration they to be granted citizenship.



Uh huh, I know, and disagreed.

There was a tiff going on, not much unlike when the colonies were ruled by Kings over seas. The South had Constitutional Rights to participate in the Federalist Government, and be represented, however, like with SEAS causing distance, so also was there great distance between the Southern States, and DC. IOW - Southern delegates traveling to DC, was not always meet or timely. Thus the result was them being out of the loop, feeling they were NOT represented, and their major revenue being Cotton and Tobacco, a lucrative
Income with overseas selling and trading, also required "import/export" taxiation due the Federation. Feeling not representated, the South decline to pay over import/export taxes on their goods. (Same as the colonists, stopped paying taxes to the King, feeling slighted in representation).

And like I said, Slavery was a State issue. Northern States did not particularly favor Slavery, or require it for production, yet the Souther States highly depended on Slavery to produce their major revenue crops.

Like I said, God sanctioned slavery, even putting His Own People in bondage. And yes there were conditions and protocol God set forth concerning another in bondage. Some in the South adhered to such conditions, some didn't. And not a surprise, since we already know, Some agree with Gods precepts and some do not.

God Bless,
Taken

If slavery was only a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise?

Do you even know the Constitution? Apparently not. You speak in broad strokes but have nothing to support your claims.

Stanger

 

[Taken]

If slavery was only a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise?

Well, um, gee, uh, I can only speak in broad strokes, when a forum such as this should be a detailed American history lesson. Lol

Do you even know the Constitution?

Uh, that's a petty big word, I'll think about it.

Apparently not.

Oh, never mind. You are one of those that can ask a question and answer the question.
Sort of like having a conversation with yourself. Is that something you learned in public education?

You speak in broad strokes but have nothing to support your claims.

I could read again all the things I listed, but then I'm not the one asking the history question.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Well, um, gee, uh, I can only speak in broad strokes, when a forum such as this should be a detailed American history lesson. Lol



Uh, that's a petty big word, I'll think about it.



Oh, never mind. You are one of those that can ask a question and answer the question.
Sort of like having a conversation with yourself. Is that something you learned in public education?



I could read again all the things I listed, but then I'm not the one asking the history question.

God Bless,
Taken

You asked of me a history question. And I answered. Post #46 and 47.

Now, I ask of you, as I asked earlier, if slavery were a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise?

Either do the work, or quit playing games.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

You asked of me a history question. And I answered. Post #46 and 47.

Now, I ask of you, as I asked earlier, if slavery were a state issue, why the Missouri Compromise?

Either do the work, or quit playing games.

Stranger

I was speaking of States.
Missouri was not a State.
Gaining Statehood is an issue of the Federation.

You want talk about a Compromise of the Federation, go ahead, you brought it up, and I asked you nothing about it.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

I was speaking of States.
Missouri was not a State.
Gaining Statehood is an issue of the Federation.

You want talk about a Compromise of the Federation, go ahead, you brought it up, and I asked you nothing about it.

God Bless,
Taken

What you said is slavery is a state issue. Thus I asked the question, if slavery was a state issue then why the Missouri Compromise?

Do you know what the Missouri Compromise was?

Stranger

 

[Taken]

What you said is slavery is a state issue. Thus I asked the question, if slavery was a state issue then why the Missouri Compromise?

Missouri was requesting Statehood, which is an issue of the Federation.

Slave States were a State issue, yet the Federation had say so, for admitting States into the Union. It was the Federation, that gained territory, and had jurisdiction over territories and began dictating, their territories to be prevented from being slave territories.

Admission to Statehood had rules, mostly regarding population, before admission would be considered.

By the Federation beginning to not allow their territories to be subject to slavery, the Federation could control, adding new slave States to Statehood.

The issue was, Colonies had salves, before there were States, thus when they became States, slavery was allowed in those States.

Process of time, the Federation attempted to halt having more slave States, as aforementioned.

Do you know what the Missouri Compromise was?

The Missouri Compromise, was a just what it means, a compromise, of the Federation in the process of trying to limit more slave States.

You want to get into the fine details of Federal discussions that took place and the Federation detailing their plans to prevent additional slavery by latitude and longitude lines, go ahead. The Federation had a goal of limiting slavery in new States being admitted to the Union. Their own discussions leads one to the mindset of the Federation, that the already existing slave States themselves would dissolve slavery in time.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Missouri was requesting Statehood, which is an issue of the Federation.

Slave States were a State issue, yet the Federation had say so, for admitting States into the Union. It was the Federation, that gained territory, and had jurisdiction over territories and began dictating, their territories to be prevented from being slave territories.

Admission to Statehood had rules, mostly regarding population, before admission would be considered.

By the Federation beginning to not allow their territories to be subject to slavery, the Federation could control, adding new slave States to Statehood.

The issue was, Colonies had salves, before there were States, thus when they became States, slavery was allowed in those States.

Process of time, the Federation attempted to halt having more slave States, as aforementioned.



The Missouri Compromise, was a just what it means, a compromise, of the Federation in the process of trying to limit more slave States.

You want to get into the fine details of Federal discussions that took place and the Federation detailing their plans to prevent additional slavery by latitude and longitude lines, go ahead. The Federation had a goal of limiting slavery in new States being admitted to the Union. Their own discussions leads one to the mindset of the Federation, that the already existing slave States themselves would dissolve slavery in time.

God Bless,
Taken

If the Federal govt. had say so, then slavery was not a state issue. That it should have been only a state issue, yes. That was the problem. The northern states were pushing the Government to act against slavery. No provision should have been added prohibiting slavery for acceptance of statehood.

In the Missouri Compromise a line was drawn at thirty six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. States above the line would forever prohibit slavery. States below slavery was allowed. Missouri was free to act on its own.

That is an act of the Congress of the United States in 1820. The Federal govt. declared which states could or could not have slaves. The Federal govt. therefore made it clear it was not a state issue.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

If the Federal govt. had say so, then slavery was not a state issue. That it should have been only a state issue, yes. That was the problem. The northern states were pushing the Government to act against slavery. No provision should have been added prohibiting slavery for acceptance of statehood.

In the Missouri Compromise a line was drawn at thirty six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. States above the line would forever prohibit slavery. States below slavery was allowed. Missouri was free to act on its own.

That is an act of the Congress of the United States in 1820. The Federal govt. declared which states could or could not have slaves. The Federal govt. therefore made it clear it was not a state issue.

Stranger

ha, no house divided goin on there at all, huh?

 

[Taken]

If the Federal govt. had say so, then slavery was not a state issue. That it should have been only a state issue, yes.

Already gave my brief comment, and am not going to continue debating with you on this issue.

Slavery was a state issue. The Union did have concerns about slavery expanding. But you seem to not consider jurisdiction.

The Federation had the jurisdiction of admitting States...and over territories.
Once a colony, a territory had existing slaves, and they were admitted at States. The jurisdiction of the slaves became under the States governance.

Remember, the Federation was a new government. It was designed to establish a Union of States. They moved forward, with admitting States. OOOPS... slavery, a concern. Northern States via their own jurisdictional laws, were outlawing slavery....southern states were thriving on slavery.....and gee....the Federation was gaining territories, which hopefully would become future states....and the Federation didn't favor slavery....thus they intervened, BEFORE they would issue State-hood.
Missouri was on the brink requesting Statehood......of this OOOOPS...in the Federation expanding, and seeing that they did not want slavery promoted.

That was the problem. The northern states were pushing the Government to act against slavery.

The northern states were exercising their own governance to outlaw slavery.

I would agree, there was more influence from the North regarding DC, as already mentioned, TRAVEL, and distance for people from the North to buzz in DC and people in the South, so far away.

No provision should have been added prohibiting slavery for acceptance of statehood.

It was a State issue. Individual States decided according to their own governments to outlaw slavery, IN THEIR STATE.

The Federal Govt, didn't outlaw slavery.
The President wrote a proclamation. So?
Proclamation are not Laws. Laws are authorized to be promulgated BY Congress, not the President.
The Congress added an Constitutional Amendment, in application to the slaves, for granting them blanket citizenship...dictating they would be citizens of the Federation, and the State in which they reside.

In the Missouri Compromise a line was drawn at thirty six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude.

States above the line would forever prohibit slavery. States below slavery was allowed. Missouri was free to act on its own.

States above, slavery was already outslawed.
Territories above, and west, were territories of the Federation, their jurisdiction to not permit slavery.

States in the South, already having slavery and already having Statehood, remained as they were.

That is an act of the Congress of the United States in 1820. The Federal govt. declared which states could or could not have slaves. The Federal govt. therefore made it clear it was not a state issue.

1820 act was about Compromising, for Missouri to receive Statehood, with partial slave population.

You ignore jurisdiction.
Slavery was a State issue and moving into the 1860's...

And come along the chatter between the North Against slavery and the South for slavery...and the taxiation on import /exports, and the great distance between the South and DC and the forming of the Confedercy....all issues leading up to the War between the States...and bam, firing on the Union military...and the War was on.

The Federation did what the Federation does when "THEY" want jurisdiction, when they have NONE...

They entice the State with $$$
(Which is how the Federation now owns millions of acreage within States)

They Amend the Constitution, giving them more power.
(Which is how they did not address SLAVERY, but addressed the SLAVES themselves, by granting them citizenship. It is the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Federation to Grant citizenship, and Citizens by right are entitled to Liberty. So when the Federation granted Citizenship to the SLAVES, they were immediately entitled to invoke their Liberty.)
Which this was advantageous for the war efforts.

Yawn on this subject.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Already gave my brief comment, and am not going to continue debating with you on this issue.

Slavery was a state issue. The Union did have concerns about slavery expanding. But you seem to not consider jurisdiction.

The Federation had the jurisdiction of admitting States...and over territories.
Once a colony, a territory had existing slaves, and they were admitted at States. The jurisdiction of the slaves became under the States governance.

Remember, the Federation was a new government. It was designed to establish a Union of States. They moved forward, with admitting States. OOOPS... slavery, a concern. Northern States via their own jurisdictional laws, were outlawing slavery....southern states were thriving on slavery.....and gee....the Federation was gaining territories, which hopefully would become future states....and the Federation didn't favor slavery....thus they intervened, BEFORE they would issue State-hood.
Missouri was on the brink requesting Statehood......of this OOOOPS...in the Federation expanding, and seeing that they did not want slavery promoted.



The northern states were exercising their own governance to outlaw slavery.

I would agree, there was more influence from the North regarding DC, as already mentioned, TRAVEL, and distance for people from the North to buzz in DC and people in the South, so far away.



It was a State issue. Individual States decided according to their own governments to outlaw slavery, IN THEIR STATE.

The Federal Govt, didn't outlaw slavery.
The President wrote a proclamation. So?
Proclamation are not Laws. Laws are authorized to be promulgated BY Congress, not the President.
The Congress added an Constitutional Amendment, in application to the slaves, for granting them blanket citizenship...dictating they would be citizens of the Federation, and the State in which they reside.






States above, slavery was already outslawed.
Territories above, and west, were territories of the Federation, their jurisdiction to not permit slavery.

States in the South, already having slavery and already having Statehood, remained as they were.



1820 act was about Compromising, for Missouri to receive Statehood, with partial slave population.

You ignore jurisdiction.
Slavery was a State issue and moving into the 1860's...

And come along the chatter between the North Against slavery and the South for slavery...and the taxiation on import /exports, and the great distance between the South and DC and the forming of the Confedercy....all issues leading up to the War between the States...and bam, firing on the Union military...and the War was on.

The Federation did what the Federation does when "THEY" want jurisdiction, when they have NONE...

They entice the State with $$$
(Which is how the Federation now owns millions of acreage within States)

They Amend the Constitution, giving them more power.
(Which is how they did not address SLAVERY, but addressed the SLAVES themselves, by granting them citizenship. It is the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Federation to Grant citizenship, and Citizens by right are entitled to Liberty. So when the Federation granted Citizenship to the SLAVES, they were immediately entitled to invoke their Liberty.)
Which this was advantageous for the war efforts.

Yawn on this subject.

God Bless,
Taken

Slavery should have been left to the states. But it was not being left to the states. The Missouri Compromise clearly shows the Fed. Govt. dictating slavery where it can or can't be allowed. And, the expansion of slavery is also the Fed. Govt. dictating where it can or can't be allowed. It is not being left up to the state.

So, indeed, as you say, the Government intervened. Therefore, it was not left to the states.

You say the Fed. Govt didn't outlaw slavery. You are wrong. The Missouri compromise outlawed slavery north of the 36 30 line. It was prohibited. That means it was outlawed. And the Fed. Govt. at the same time declared Missouri a free state to decide on its own. All of which shows that slavery was not being left to the states.

Later the Kansas/Nebraska bill would change that. Then later the Supreme Court would change that. All of which shows that slavery was not being left to the states.

I am not ignoring anything. Slavery was not left to the states. The Government was always setting or lifting restrictions. Thus your statement that slavery was a 'states' issue is blindly wrong.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

Slavery should have been left to the states. But it was not being left to the states. The Missouri Compromise clearly shows the Fed. Govt. dictating slavery where it can or can't be allowed. And, the expansion of slavery is also the Fed. Govt. dictating where it can or can't be allowed. It is not being left up to the state.

So, indeed, as you say, the Government intervened. Therefore, it was not left to the states.

You say the Fed. Govt didn't outlaw slavery. You are wrong. The Missouri compromise outlawed slavery north of the 36 30 line. It was prohibited. That means it was outlawed. And the Fed. Govt. at the same time declared Missouri a free state to decide on its own. All of which shows that slavery was not being left to the states.

Later the Kansas/Nebraska bill would change that. Then later the Supreme Court would change that. All of which shows that slavery was not being left to the states.

I am not ignoring anything. Slavery was not left to the states. The Government was always setting or lifting restrictions. Thus your statement that slavery was a 'states' issue is blindly wrong.

Stranger

Can't understand it for you.
The Federation has governance over it's jurisdiction.
The Federation was never given jurisdiction over slavery. Their jurisdiction was over their territories and admitting States and setting the rules for admitting States.

The Missouri Compromise was enacted in 1820.

Missouri was not admitted into Statehood until 1821.

The rest of the land to the north and east was either States already opposed to slavery, or territory under the jurisdiction of the Federation....and they dictated the rules for their own lands, and admission of States.

And the Southern States continued with their own laws governing slavery and slaves; since slavery was a State issue.

I can't understand the progression for you, and am bored with this conversation.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Can't understand it for you.
The Federation has governance over it's jurisdiction.
The Federation was never given jurisdiction over slavery. Their jurisdiction was over their territories and admitting States and setting the rules for admitting States.

The Missouri Compromise was enacted in 1820.

Missouri was not admitted into Statehood until 1821.

The rest of the land to the north and east was either States already opposed to slavery, or territory under the jurisdiction of the Federation....and they dictated the rules for their own lands, and admission of States.

And the Southern States continued with their own laws governing slavery and slaves; since slavery was a State issue.

I can't understand the progression for you, and am bored with this conversation.

God Bless,
Taken

You can't understand it period. You can't have the Federal govt. acting upon slavery as they did and then say it is a state issue. That is ridiculous.

When the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808, that also was the Federal govt. making slavery it's issue.

Your boredom is of no interest to me.

Stranger