The case for secession

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Stratiotes, Aug 4, 2004.

?

The case for secession

  1. Secession was legal under the Articles of Confederation only.

    25.0%
  2. Secession is legal under the Constitution only.

    25.0%
  3. Secession is legal under both the AoC and the Constitution

    8.3%
  4. Secession is not legal under either one.

    41.7%
  5. Unsure.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Summarize your views on secession
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Voluntary union can (although painful, like a divorce) become voluntary disunion.

    Unless one of the parties is more powerful and decides to FORCE a continued union by that force.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Couldn't answer. Practically speaking it was legal before The War and illegal after.
     
  4. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K - in light of your other post about voting, is that a statement of pragmatism like voting for Bush or a statement of principle like voting for Peroutka? [​IMG]
     
  5. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, once again you echo my sentiments. I love the way Calhoun said it (posted elsewhere but I'll put it here too since its so good ;) )

    'urely that can with no propriety of language be called a Union when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation on the part of the weaker to the stronger than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union.'
    - Sen. John C. Calhoun, 4 March 1850
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    C4K - in light of your other post about voting, is that a statement of pragmatism like voting for Bush or a statement of principle like voting for Peroutka? [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]Sadly, might makes right. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that hints at an inseperable union, but the might of the federal government made it clear that it was not going to happen.
     
  7. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pragmatically speaking, that would seem so. But, principles are unchangeable by circumstance. If it is right then might has nothing to say about it. Might does not make right, it does however have a way of giving wrong a temporary victory in a particular situation. No matter how strong the opposition, right is still right. But, I think I'm preaching to the choir with this group ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...