Does a State have the right to secede?

[Liz Rosenthal]

Mea culpa. I did say that. But the two statements are not really "opposite." You'll notice that, in the "Erasing History" thread, I was referring to majority rule depriving a minority of voting rights - even human rights - in the case of Jim Crow. That is something that majority rule cannot validly do in a democracy. There are limits.

(08-21-2013 08:26 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:21 AM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  Even if, for the moment, we took as true the idea that three states entered the union on that basis, how does this feeling among three states govern the intent of all 13 original states? Wouldn't this be a case of three states dictating the conditions of union for the other 10? Wouldn't that amount to minority rule, which is about as un-democratic as you can get?

That is exactly the opposite of what you said in another thread "Erasing History", post #35:

"It was "majority rule" that kept black people from voting for 100 years after the end of the Civil War. Majority rule isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm not saying I'm against majority rule, but sometimes majority rule has to take the minority view into account."

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid17682

---

brtmchl said:

"In 1847, Lincoln believed that Texas’ return to independence could bring a quick end to the U.S.-Mexico War."

Can you give me the citation for the statement? I can't find it in the Collected Works. Thanks.

brtmchl also said:

"In 1820 Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts, and the secession and formation of the state of Maine occurred in 1820."

That's irrelevant, and I'm sure you know why. Maine voting to secede and becoming a state independent of Massachusetts in 1820 occurred as part of the Missouri compromise! In other words, everyone consented, in fact, demanded, that this secession occur so as to balance the entry of a new slave state (Missouri) with the admission of a new free state (Maine).

Let's put this another way. The issue of whether a state has the right to secede really should be phrased as whether a state has the right to take the unilateral action of seceding.

brtmchl said:

"What if that slave master IS the Government?"

That was actually the case in the South. Given the power over national policy, Congress, the presidency and the U.S. Supreme Court possessed by the Slaveocracy in the antebellum period, the Slave Master was effectively in control of the national government, also.