States have the right to secede from the United States.

Sorry to jump in, didn't Hawaii have a vote on secession and reject it unanimously?

E_S

 

I belive so. Im still trying to hunt up the info on Alabama and having one hell of a time.

 

What do pineapples have to reject to?....Besides Hawaii wasn't a state then...

 

You sure? Methnks this was in the 1980's... ?

E_S

 

Obi-wan McCartney:
I still don't see why you value the Declaration of Independence as a legal document. The DoI has no legal value; it was never meant to have any either.

 

The Declaration Of Independence was the founding body of text that Ameican leaders used to define what they did NOT want in any future incarnation of government that would preside for generations. It was the primary instrument referred to when drafting The Constitution. It was seminal and visionary in its poignant focus on individual human freedom as the primary goal of government...It was essentially...Libertarian....But yes, it is not a sovereign instrument of law...

 

Ah...well, it could be a great visionary document and all that, but did it really put the stamp down as to say "this is how it's gonna be" or was it more like "this is how we want to have it be"?

 

Yo, it's not my argument, it was the argument of our esteamed former President Lincoln, he used the document to justify his actions to preserve the union.

He's considered one of our greatest Presidents, (perhaps greatest politician, smarter than Truman and craftier than Clinton), so if you have beef take it up with him.

 

Who's burried in Grants Tomb?

 

Grant's wife?

 

General-President Ulysses S. Grant and his wife.

As for President Lincoln, well, he used it, but it doesn't make it completely legit. And I can't take up beef with him, I haven't developed communicative abilities with the dead yet.

 

Yeah, well the last time Abe Lincoln went to the theater was the last time Abe Lincoln went to the theater.

Wasn't there a movie called "Abe and the Babe"? About Abe Lincoln and Babe Ruth?

 

Well the the Boston Tea party wasn't legit and it certainly wasn't legal.

There are a lot of things in history which were not legit, yet we hold a lot of those things dear and will not budge from them.


Abe was right. There is no legitimate reason for a State to leave our Union. Especially when that State(s) are down right wrong like the South was.

 

"They say the victors right history. If the secessionists had won, I think you'd probably be singing a different tune."

I personally think the USA and CSA would be two third world nations.


In my own personal view, the Confederacy had the right to become a new nation just not the might.

There was a wonderful quote by some guy who said "Any nation that cannot defend itself has no right to exist." I firmly believe this. I also believe that saving the Union turned out for the best. We are the world's #1. I am sure George Washington and Old Abe would be proud.

 

Yeah, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I have the right to crap myself and drop out of school, but I don't think that's in anyone's best interest.

Boo-ya. I think I just ended this argument.

Also, the Declaration is an important and perhaps legal document because it established the UNION. Again, that's what ole not-so-honest Abe said.

 

DARTHPIGFEET:
Abe was right. There is no legitimate reason for a State to leave our Union.

What do you mean by "legitimate"? Who defines legitimate?

Also, the Declaration is an important and perhaps legal document because it established the UNION.

I assume by "UNION" you mean the USA, and that is true. But it was really a document proclaiming secession from the British Empire, and by no means proclaimed the binding of any states to any national government. It never even provisioned any form of national government whatsoever, just "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES".

 

Hardly a day goes by that I don't mourn what was lost at Appomattox.

 

so Binary, if every single state wanted to become it's own country, you would support it? also, w/ slavery becoming more outdated by the time of the Civil War, how long do you honestly think the Confederate States of America would have lasted if there wasn't a Civil War?


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

See, perhaps from a theoretical perspective, yes they do.

But imho, we as individuals should have the right to do a lot of things we are denied. Gays should have the right to get married, polygamists should have that right too, I should have the right to buy/sell beer on sundays all day and all night.

But the fact is, the states DON'T have the right to secede, cause when they tried, Lincoln declared they didn't, and that has been the rule of law/precedent ever since. Don't believe me? I don't care. It's true! hahahahahahahahahah!

 

I saw something on the history channel the other day that applies to this. During our "Civil War" MOST of your average southerners Did NOT want to leave the Union, but they were poor, and with the old souths aristocratic society, most of the average mans votes werent counted.

The old south, the closest thing to a monarchy modern America has ever had.

 

Darth Tunick asked: so Binary, if every single state wanted to become it's own country, you would support it?

Yes.


He also asked: also, w/ slavery becoming more outdated by the time of the Civil War, how long do you honestly think the Confederate States of America would have lasted if there wasn't a Civil War?

I believe the CSA would still exist today. The CSA didn't depend upon slavery for its existence. Most of the Latin American countries had slaves in the 19th century. None of those countries disappeared when slavery was abolished in them. Why would the CSA be any different? Especially when one considers that slavery was a far bigger part of Brazil (for example) than it was of the CSA.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney, all the things you listed (polygamy, homosexual marriage, selling beer, and seceding) are moral rights. We, simply by virtue of being human, have the moral right to do any and all of those things.

We don't have the legal right to do them, though. Just like Jews and Gypsies didn't have the legal right to even exist in Hitler's Germany.

A government can make something illegal. But it can't change the fact that we have the moral right to do anything other than aggress.

 

Jedi Xen, I don't know the numbers, but I do know that your average "man on the street" in the South in 1860-61 was more likely to support secession than was your average "man on the street" in the American colonies to support secession in 1776.

Also, remember that neither the USA nor the CSA was a democracy. There never were popular votes to secede from either the British Empire in 1776 or from the Union in 1860-61. Neither the USA nor the CSA had a democratic form of government. Consider:

Both the CSA and the USA had virtually identically-structured federal governments:

1. A supreme court made up of non-elected, appointed judges.

2. A president chosen by the handful of electors selected by each state.

3. A congress made up of two houses:
A) A senate composed of men selected by the state legislatures.
B) A house composed of men elected by the people of each state.

So, only one-half of one of the three branches of government was democratic. Only the house of representatives was chosen by democratic election. And even that was severely restricted:

Are you a woman? No vote for you.
Are you black? No vote for you.
Are you a renter? No vote for you.

Only white male property-owners could vote for their representative.

All of the above was true for the USA and the CSA.

If a lack of democracy would invalidate the South's secession in 1860-61, then it would also invalidate the colonies' secession in 1776.

 

You're right most colonists would have preferred to work something out and remain British citizens, just as most southerners prefered to work something out and remain part of the United States, but when "Their" representatives had voted for seperation and their homes came under attack both the southerners and colonials fought like tigers.

Difference between the Civil War and the Revolution is, the Union at least gave the "Illusion" that the average man was represented. The British refused to consider all American attempts. I read somewhere Benjamin Franklin came up with the prospect that all the American colonies (including the ones in Canada) be united as a Federal government, but with King George III as Emperor George I of America, the American Empire would be equal to England and Scotland but have its own Parliment that met in Philadelphia. For some reason King George refused to acknowledge it or, his advisors that met with Franklin didn't tell him or something, and the rest is history.

 

Only white male property-owners could vote for their representative.

The term for that is 'elite democracy.' It only encompasses a minority of the population, but it is democracy nonetheless, I'm afraid.

If you wanted to rule it undemocratic because everyone except white male landowners was banned from voting, then there'd be no difference from declaring America undemocratic now, because it prevents lunatics (I believe that's the word that it uses) and criminals from voting. I THINK there are also other people banned from voting, but I'm not sure on the American electoral system - I only know about the British.

- Scarlet.