Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Aeson
And I was postulating based on the 'leave slavery out of it' part of the original question.

Even if the Constitution isn't violated though, States should still have their right to withdraw from the Union if the populace wishes it. The Constitution was drawn up long ago, and ratified before anyone living here in the US was born. It isn't a sacred document that could never be wrong.

Since the states can only enter the Union by the vote of congress, IMO the implication is that is the only way they can leave it. It would be a disaster for national stability if states had the ability to leave the union on whatever whim. That's no way to run a nation, and the powers given to congress to suppress legislatures in sedition support that view.

Whether or not the COTUS is sacred or not is irrelevant--it's the law, and therefore must be adhered to. If you don't like it, you work to change it, hence the ability to ammend. And the SCOTUS and other courts ensure it is a living document, not a static writ.

[Aeson]

I'm not talking about legally leaving the Union. It is possible for the Constitution to be used 'legally' in a way that would give the citizens of the US the moral right (IMO) to either revolt (national populace) or seceed (state populace).

How about a hypothetical situation: (extremely unlikely, but within the realm of possibility)

An amendment is passed which states that homosexuals aren't allowed citizenship. This amendment recieves the 75% needed and becomes 'constitutional'.

One or more of the more liberal states with a high homosexual population decides to seceed based on this new amendment. Their act would be unlawful, but would it be wrong for them to do so? Would a war by the federal government against these states be right or wrong? Can constitutional laws be wrong?

[MrFun]

Aeson, even in your example of this liberal state, that state would be in the wrong to secede from the United States.


And one more thing, Aeson -- no sane leaders of any government would provide for a means of legal secession. The only way it could be legal, was that type that was specified in the Declaration of Independence.

And the Declaration of Independence remains as part of our Organic Laws.

[Aeson]

Wrong in a legal sense, but morally? The Revolutionary War was an illegal act, but one which most people in the US would feel as morally justified.

[MrFun]

You thought I would change my stance on this issue out of mere convenience because you put homosexuality/liberal state example. Well, nice try, but that state would be in the wrong in the legal sense and moral sense.

As for the American Revolution -- the Declaration of Independence was a legal document that listed the various grievances that the Americans had against Great Britain.
Great Britain refused repeatedly to try to seriously undo these grievances.
Revolt was the last step to take, and we gladly took it.

[Aeson]

Yes I did use it because it seemed you might see my point more clearly. My thinking was that if you didn't agree with that, you wouldn't agree with any other hypothetical situations.

So you can see no possible reason from a moral standpoint that secession would ever be justified?

[KrazyHorse]

The South. Divide and conquer...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
Yes I did use it because it seemed you might see my point more clearly. My thinking was that if you didn't agree with that, you wouldn't agree with any other hypothetical situations.

So you can see no possible reason from a moral standpoint that secession would ever be justified?

As I keep reiterating the same question that you keep asking, there is only one legal and moral reason -- the one set down by the Declaration of Independence.

So, no -- there are no other reasons for any state to secede when their sovreignty of their state government is not threatened.



And KH -- you round up those Canada Geese, and KEEP THEM AWAY FROM US!!

[Boris Godunov]

As for the American Revolution -- the Declaration of Independence was a legal document that listed the various grievances that the Americans had against Great Britain.
Great Britain refused repeatedly to try to seriously undo these grievances.
Revolt was the last step to take, and we gladly took it.

Uh...well...

A majority of American colonists did not support the Revolution. Don't forget how badly Torries were treated by the rebels. Most colonists felt there was still a lot of room for reconcilliation.

Remember that the men who became our Founding Fathers were radicals, and many of the grievances listed in the DoI were ones that had been manufactured by those fanatics (not that the situations weren't true, but that the radicals had deliberately provoked and exacerbated them). Certainly Britain had every right to feel the revolution was unjust, as they had just spend a ton of money and the lives of thousands of British soldiers defending the American colonists during the French and Indian War. The thought the colonists were being profoundly ungrateful, as they demanded the Crown protect them but refused to pay for such protection.

I don't think the American Revolution was really about all the ideals claimed in the DoI. There was a lot of self-aggrandizing fanaticism involved.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by MrFun
As I keep reiterating the same question that you keep asking, there is only one legal and moral reason -- the one set down by the Declaration of Independence.

Fair enough. I didn't want to assume so I asked.

So, no -- there are no other reasons for any state to secede when their sovreignty of their state government is not threatened.

And who should be the judge of what constitutes a valid threat?

[MrFun]

**********BORI'S QUOTE
Uh...well...

A majority of American colonists did not support the Revolution. Don't forget how badly Torries were treated by the rebels. Most colonists felt there was still a lot of room for reconcilliation.

Remember that the men who became our Founding Fathers were radicals, and many of the grievances listed in the DoI were ones that had been manufactured by those fanatics (not that the situations weren't true, but that the radicals had deliberately provoked and exacerbated them). Certainly Britain had every right to feel the revolution was unjust, as they had just spend a ton of money and the lives of thousands of British soldiers defending the American colonists during the French and Indian War. The thought the colonists were being profoundly ungrateful, as they demanded the Crown protect them but refused to pay for such protection.

I don't think the American Revolution was really about all the ideals claimed in the DoI. There was a lot of self-aggrandizing fanaticism involved.
***********END OF BORI'S QUOTE

I see both sides of the historical issue, Boris, and after what I have learned, I have seen the American Revolution as justified.
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this aspect.

As for the Tories -- I'm well aware of how they were tarred and feathered, had their property destroyed or stolen, and were imprisoned.
Look at the Loyalist Governor Thomas Hutchinson -- he said something like this: "They call me a brainless Tory, but tell me, which is better --- to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away, or to be ruled by 3,000 tyrants about a mile away?"

Originally posted by Aeson

Fair enough. I didn't want to assume so I asked.

And who should be the judge of what constitutes a valid threat?

WHO should judge what is legitimate separation??
Those who are subjected to repeated governmental violations and when their grievances are repeatedly neglected, or deliberately ignored.

[Aeson]

So in my hypothetical example, couldn't homosexuals (and whatever states supported their rights) fall into that category eventually?

How long should a populace need to allow government violations to continue before their action against it becomes justified?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
So in my hypothetical example, couldn't homosexuals (and whatever states supported their rights) fall into that category eventually?

How long should a populace need to allow government violations to continue before their action against it becomes justified?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight we homosexuals have military power that you would not believe, so that if we did revolt to form our own little state in San Franciso, we would NEVER be taken back by the might of government's forces.


It is simply infeasible for any minority group in the United States to rise up successfully, and create a separate state from the United States -- right or wrong.



But IS it right or wrong, you asked.
Homosexuals have the right to vote -- even when their sexual orientation is made to be known, they cannot be denied the right to vote.

Homosexuals have the right to life --- even when bigots bash in a homosexual's head, they would be promptly taken to the appropriate court, and be tried for murder.

Homosexuals have the right to property --- nowhere has the government backed up any attempt to deny a homosexual man/woman his/her property when their sexual orientation is known.

But there are other rights that we are struggling for --
**custody of adopted, or biological children;
**equal priveleges/benefits in the workplaces;
**consistent consideration for gay students' safety in high schools and colleges;
**repeal of sodomy laws, or at the very least, no longer defining homosexual sex acts as sodomy;
**a demand to minimize police neglect/brutality towards homosexuals who are victims of crime (to reaffirm government's protection of everyone's right to life/property) and a couple of other issues.



Now, our basic rights are protected --- the question is, as society slowly changes to becoming more accepting of homosexuals and bisexuals, and as dialogue becomes more open and frequent about sexual orientation, are we right to revolt??

I would say no, because society, IMO, is already on the path to change, in spite of areas of struggle, and some points of falling backwards. We are now at the point though, where we will overcome these obstacles sooner or later.

Aeson -- congratulations --- you managed to bring up a thread-jack topic like homosexuality in a thread about the Civil War.

Aeson -- if you want to continue your analogy (flawed??), then you might want to start a new thread before Cal decides to kill both of us.

For instance -- your thread title could be something like this:
"When do minority groups (not state governments) have right to revolt within a nation?"

[Aeson]

I was just using discrimination against a minority group as an example of why a state might possibly secede. No need to continue the discussion with any specific group, though it might make an interesting topic (no one reads my threads though ).

The main point was still if there were any circumstance when a state was morally justified in secession. I think we've agreed that there are, just for different reasons. You with what is covered in the DoI, me with just about any reason a state could come up with that was supported by the populace.

I agree that if peaceful/lawful options exist they should be used first to try and end oppression/disagreement. Failing in that, secession or revolution, depending on the scope of the resistance.

Getting back to the civil war, I feel the people of the south had a right to secede (but not the right to continue slavery). I don't know if they would have if slavery hadn't been an issue. If there had been another issue deemed worthy of secession by the South, I think they would have been justified in doing so.

I look at the Civil War in much the same light as the War for Independance. I don't agree with the South's motivation, but ignoring that motivation (as dictated by the topic of this thread) meant they were just fighting for their rights to govern themselves as they saw fit.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
You with what is covered in the DoI, me with just about any reason a state could come up with that was supported by the populace.

So in other words, I used a primary source to back up my opinion, and you have not.

Originally posted by Aeson
I agree that if peaceful/lawful options exist they should be used first to try and end oppression/disagreement. Failing in that, secession or revolution, depending on the scope of the resistance.

Getting back to the civil war, I feel the people of the south had a right to secede (but not the right to continue slavery). I don't know if they would have if slavery hadn't been an issue. If there had been another issue deemed worthy of secession by the South, I think they would have been justified in doing so.

I look at the Civil War in much the same light as the War for Independance. I don't agree with the South's motivation, but ignoring that motivation (as dictated by the topic of this thread) meant they were just fighting for their rights to govern themselves as they saw fit.

The Southern states already had the right to govern themselves -- any powers that were and are, not explicitly given to the federal government, were and are, left to the states.
To this extent, the state governments could govern themselves within the confines of the legal document called the U.S. Constitution.