I like the Revolutionary War analogy to the Civil War. True, we 'seceded from Britain. We claimed British territory as ours and that we were a new Country. The British held no title to the territory but it was for sure British.
However, we did not in any way expect that the British would not be coming to retake their territory. We knew we were committing an act of rebellion of the Crown. And we knew that if we were unable to repel the British that serious consequences (death, seizure of assets, imprisonment abroad, etc.) would be inevitable. We also knew that the protections given British subjects would not be allotted to the new Country or those fighting in it's army. No delusions there.
The Civil War was the South doing the same thing. You claimed earlier that it was not US territory because the Federal Government didn't hold title on all the land. Wrong, US territory is not the same as US property. The Confederacy didn't hold title yet claimed it as their territory. The difference is that the Confederacy was not able the repel the army of the nation who's territory they were taking. Failing to repel that army resulted in facing the consequences described above.
Further, if the Constitution is a treaty as you asserted then that treaty was broken by the southern States. And breaking a treaty is to lose the protections and terms it provided. And as a proclaimed sovereign nation you can no more expect to be treated as a citizen of another country. It would be ludicrous for one nation to expect the protection of the laws of another nation.
The rebellion of the colonies, the south, and any other potential secession should have no expectation that the territory they are taking from another nation won't be answered by that nation with a vigorous attempt to re-gain that territory via force. To expect otherwise is naive.
The question of what constitutes a serious reason for secession be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level was left unanswered but the answer is none. Unless representatives stop relinquishing their elected offices peacefully when no longer voted in we still have the control of our government. The protection is protection of participation.
Our strength is our unity of diverse States. Solutions to problems, no matter the gravity, are addressable by our unique system of government. Participation, not just complaining, is required to fix problems. Participation, not just attacking each other, is required to apply the devices afforded to us to shape our laws and therefore or lives.
There are no Trotsky puppet masters directing or government. The is no vast right wing or left wing cabal directing the decisions of our leaders and quelling decent and vocalization of opinion. If their were many of us would have already had a knock on the door.
Truth is individual Americans UNITED at the various levels of government still steer the boat. Don't like the direction? Then participate more. Like the direction? Then participate more to assure it isn't altered. The point is participation can and will solve any problem short of the peaceful transfer of power no longer taking place. And even then, unity will fix that too, not peacefully but even that can be addressed via unity.
More unity and participation are the solution, the promoting of less unity and secession are counter to the solution.
However, we did not in any way expect that the British would not be coming to retake their territory. We knew we were committing an act of rebellion of the Crown. And we knew that if we were unable to repel the British that serious consequences (death, seizure of assets, imprisonment abroad, etc.) would be inevitable. We also knew that the protections given British subjects would not be allotted to the new Country or those fighting in it's army. No delusions there.
The Civil War was the South doing the same thing. You claimed earlier that it was not US territory because the Federal Government didn't hold title on all the land. Wrong, US territory is not the same as US property. The Confederacy didn't hold title yet claimed it as their territory. The difference is that the Confederacy was not able the repel the army of the nation who's territory they were taking. Failing to repel that army resulted in facing the consequences described above.
Further, if the Constitution is a treaty as you asserted then that treaty was broken by the southern States. And breaking a treaty is to lose the protections and terms it provided. And as a proclaimed sovereign nation you can no more expect to be treated as a citizen of another country. It would be ludicrous for one nation to expect the protection of the laws of another nation.
The rebellion of the colonies, the south, and any other potential secession should have no expectation that the territory they are taking from another nation won't be answered by that nation with a vigorous attempt to re-gain that territory via force. To expect otherwise is naive.
The question of what constitutes a serious reason for secession be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level was left unanswered but the answer is none. Unless representatives stop relinquishing their elected offices peacefully when no longer voted in we still have the control of our government. The protection is protection of participation.
Our strength is our unity of diverse States. Solutions to problems, no matter the gravity, are addressable by our unique system of government. Participation, not just complaining, is required to fix problems. Participation, not just attacking each other, is required to apply the devices afforded to us to shape our laws and therefore or lives.
There are no Trotsky puppet masters directing or government. The is no vast right wing or left wing cabal directing the decisions of our leaders and quelling decent and vocalization of opinion. If their were many of us would have already had a knock on the door.
Truth is individual Americans UNITED at the various levels of government still steer the boat. Don't like the direction? Then participate more. Like the direction? Then participate more to assure it isn't altered. The point is participation can and will solve any problem short of the peaceful transfer of power no longer taking place. And even then, unity will fix that too, not peacefully but even that can be addressed via unity.
It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy -- a Government of the people, by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their Government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
Abraham Lincoln, Special Session Message, 1861.
More unity and participation are the solution, the promoting of less unity and secession are counter to the solution.