As my last post (post #81) has gone undisputed, I'll go ahead and use it the speak to some of the posts since then.
I agree. hell the founders told us in the Declaration of Independence.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"
They believed it so much they thought it would be even morally right to do so.
The major defect in the parallel between the oppression of the Colonialists and the government of today is that you and your State government have representation to effect a change. The colonialist had no such representation. Their voice could not make a change. They had no say who the Governor or king would be and no seat in London. You and your State government each have representation in the Congress and you have a say who holds the office of President. In short, they had no means to solve the problem, YOU DO, your STATE does. Unwillingness to participate does not justify taking US territory.
As for them being 'traitors' of the British. OK, they had no other choice.
The history of the U.S. is quite adequate to the task of dealing with the idea of secession. With the Articles of Confederation, we find that the confederation was to be a perpetual Union of the States (Art. XIII). That idea was in fact, carried over to the Constitution in practice (Art. IV section 3).
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall), (1869).
It is not a decision on who or how or why or when a state can secede, but it incorporated that as part of the decision on U.S. Government Bonds held by Texas and why White did not have any possesary right to them.
That one decision sealed the fate of all secessionists. It laid out in concrete terms how a State can rightfully withdraw from the Union, all based upon the logic of how they enter into Union in the first place. That is, it is done within the Congress of the United States to begin with, and so must end there.
That being true it is only accepted by those that also accept the rule of law.
The thing with secession, it carries it's own morality, and no court can eliminate that. I think if a state or group of states wants to depart the Union, they have a moral and ethical right to do so, court decisions notwithstanding.
The value of the principle of the rule of law is only valuable if it fits into their sophistry. If it works to make their point,
Quote:
Simply proclaiming you don't want to participate any more doesn't mean you have any claim on the US territory your on. And when that country shows up to take it back, that's not unprovoked aggression, it's an inevitable consequence.
That idea has no legal basis.
OH, rule of law respected suddenly, it apparently needs to be written down somewhere that if a country's territory is taken by another country, then it's LEGAL for that country to come and re-claim it. Well, legal or not, they will be coming because the invaders or occupiers have no legal protection as they are not citizens of the country coming the reclaim their territory, they are foriegn adversaries, to be killed unless they surrender.
Er, no, I mean an Amendment making slavery permanent.
It's really not about States rights or being a terrific freedom fighter is it? It's about generational passing on resentment about freeing those black people. About 150 years of passing on a tale of injustice put upon the south by the tyranny of the evil north. Hanging on hard to the belief that those slaves were theirs and they had the right to them, not letting them keep them was unAmerican and/or against States'. Acting out with segregation and poll taxes. Fight it.
Pass on to successive generations a spun tale of Northern Aggression. Forget that it was a rebellion to maintain slavery. We had the right (no right exists) to take American territory because they don't OWN it. We claim it so it's OUR territory now and we get to keep our slaves. (Of course we don't own it either but ignore that hypocrisy) For the US to come and regain their territory is TYRANNY. We took it and we say you have not right to take it back. Your laws and that treaty we broke should protect our rights although we completely reject your country and are a sovereign country. If you take back your territory it's tyranny.
That legislation posted to make slavery permanent was proof that it was not a high minded moral stand the south was up to, it was about believing those slaves were their property and human bondage was a state right.
Secession on immoral grounds is repugnant. What reason would there be for it that cannot be addressed via voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level?
Will this question go undisputed? Post #81 is undisputed as it has thus far stood without challenge
