Right to Secede

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Dr. Bob, May 29, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Independent and sovereign states confederated with each other to win the rebellion against Great Britain. They felt they had the "right to secede" from oppresive and tyranical government. They won the rebellion, so it is called a "revolution".

    Later, the wonderful Articles of Confederation were usurped by a radical new constitution. When the balance of power slowly shifted to favor one group of states, some states felt they had the "right to secede" from oppresive and tyranical government. They lost the rebellion, so it is called "the late great unpleasantness".

    What are your thoughts on the right to secede?
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If one freely joined an organization then one should also have the right to freely leave an organization.
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Ken. The only thing I would add is that if the same state that freely joined with the colonies, nation, and freely left, then they should also turn back over all of the stuff that the nation allowed them to have through the taxes of the nation as a whole (not sure that made sense, but I hope you get my meaning). Of course, I guess the question is, did the new nation buy part of that land (AKA the Louisianna Purchase)? And if so, do the people who live in that part of the nation really have the right to take away the land from the nation that bought it?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe not take it away but perhaps compensate the previous owner for it in some way.
     
  5. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if the United States does not wish to lose the land even if it were compensated? Shouldn't the appropriate remedy be for those who are not happy to leave since it isn't really their land in the first place?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's one of the reasons why wars are fought. Might does not make right but it does determine ownership.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Had a bully in elementary school that reminds me of the same philosophy, Ken. [​IMG]

    That's what the North was. Bullying the South out of its rights (including its "peculiar institution") and eventually into colonial status in the Union.

    I'da left that bully too.
     
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    You people are amazing. In theory, the president is under your governor. No wonder the south lost. They were fools with logic too.

    The states have all the freedom to do as they wish, as long as it does not come into conflict with the NATIONAL constitution, the law of ALL the land.

    I don't mean to gloat, but let me remind you all whose blood was wasted because of a bin-laden type general named Lee.

    The terrorists winning the war would have been the moral equivalence of allowing Ted Bundy to administer an all girls school.

    The south made their point and it was heard. They were trying to tell the world that they wanted their sons, husbands, brothers, uncles, etc., to die in vain.

    How flippantly the south wasted lives over bad political science and even worse biblical theology. Unfortunately, many are still fighting that war, but the United States doesn't care. Good riddance.
     
  9. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken,

    Are you ready to fight a war of secession for a land that doesn't really even belong to you?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. We lost to the tyrannical Yankees in the War for Southern Independence. Nowadays with nuclear weapons in the control of the Yankees there is no way to win such a war for independence.

    Today we have to win our independence at the ballot box, not with bullets.
     
  11. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    The South chose its "peculiar instituton" and with it its economic dependence upon the North and upon England.. So long as the secesh states remained within the Union, they had rights. None of which were directly threatened by the election of Lincoln.

    I get tired of the nonsense that the South had nothing to do with the war. If there were any bullies leading up to the war, they would be southerners who threatened — repeatedly, and Anrew Jackson had put the down previously — to take their marbles and go home.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CSA had plenty to do with the war. They were defending their homeland from the tyrannical Yankee invaders.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken,

    Wouldn't the better solution be for the Confederates who want to Secede to simply leave the Union and start their own country on an island that hasn't been settled yet. The Union did, afterall, purchase the land.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CSA had plenty to do with the war. They were defending their homeland from the tyrannical Yankee invaders.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Not as far as the Lousiana Purchase is concerned. It may be where their home was, but it was on loan since the land was purchased by the Union. It seems to me, that at least with the Lousianna Purchase, the Confederates seemed to have no claim to the land and probably should have left if they didn't like the government. I don't believe Lincoln would have forced them to stay in America.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure there are lots of legal questions that lawyers could debate about for years and years and years.

    Regardless, I wish the CSA had won it's independence, but it didn't. And there's no way to obtain it now unless the country comes totally apart at the seams. And I do not wish for that to happen.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely there were other unsettled territories the Confederates could have settled and avoided war altogether and had their independence? Don't you think? They probably still ate some.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have stood and fought for my homeland without moving.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't Arkansas originally part of the LA Purchase? How is it that you have a claim over the Union to land that they bought and paid for?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    In 1861 I would not have been interested in a bunch of lawyerese. I would have fought for my homeland. Period. There's not much more I can say about it. That is simply what I would have done. If anyone disagrees, that's okay.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. ZeroTX

    ZeroTX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my knowledge, Texas still HAS the right to secede [​IMG] Something to do with the fact that Texas was an independent sovereign nation at the time we agreed to statehood.

    I'm a fan of state's rights, so I support the right to secede if the state feels oppressed by the federal government.

    -Michael
     

Share This Page

Loading...