[neictscek]

It's pretty simple. We reconquered the south. On that note, the difference among the earlier cited secessions (US from Britain, South from US, Texas from Mexico) is all a question of who won the ensuing war.

Preventing war is why I write this thread. There never needs to be a revolutionary war so long as the sovereign power of session is respected, which is grounded in the principle of consent of the governed.

Ensuing wars are only the result of denying this principle and power of sovereignty. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[gorbasevhuynani]

Preventing war is why I write this thread. There never needs to be a revolutionary war so long as the sovereign power of session is respected, which is grounded in the principle of consent of the governed.

Ensuing wars are only the result of denying this principle and power of sovereignty. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

I can't agree with the first part of your post. Imagine a hypothetical country, a vast prairie which is irrigated by a central resevoir. The people in this resevoir decide they wish to secede from the rest of the country, this done they then turn round and say, " this water belongs to us, you our previous countrymen aren't entitled to any" Whats the prairie folk supposed to do ? respect the secession.....and then starve to death ?

Secondly ( and in relation to the American Civil War ) claims that the souths right to secede were founded on the principle of consent of the governed, do kind of run aground on the rock of Slavery. Wherein a fairly large number of people were governed ( ruled, owned - choose your term ) over a period of generations without any body seeking their consent. Anybody talking about the right to secede, consent of the governed etc etc who's trying to apply that to the south before the emancipation laws is operating one hell of a double standard if you ask me.

[CibQueersejer]

I guess the answer is states can freely secede. And then after secession since we don't have a peace agreement with them we can invade them and divvy up the spoils.

[dubballey]

I can't agree with the first part of your post. Imagine a hypothetical country, a vast prairie which is irrigated by a central resevoir. The people in this resevoir decide they wish to secede from the rest of the country, this done they then turn round and say, " this water belongs to us, you our previous countrymen aren't entitled to any" Whats the prairie folk supposed to do ? respect the secession.....and then starve to death ?

You're confusing an entangling set of hypothetical circumstances with the underlying principle of consent of the governed.

There is no reason why some compromise regarding the shared propery of the resevoir can't be reached as many sovereign countries have treaties with other countries, e.g., military bases like Fort Sumter.

Secondly ( and in relation to the American Civil War ) claims that the souths right to secede were founded on the principle of consent of the governed, do kind of run aground on the rock of Slavery.

Slavery does not invaldate the principal of consent of the governed. Slaves were involved in EVERY scenario presented.
* the colonies of Britain can secede, becoming individual sovereign States;
* Texas can secede from Mexico, becoming a sovereign State;
* the individual sovereign States can secede from the Articles of Confederation, formed in "perpetual union;"
* the counties of western Virginia can secede from Virginia and accepted by the US as a sovereign State in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution

[Dstyeglm]

I guess the answer is states can freely secede. And then after secession since we don't have a peace agreement with them we can invade them and divvy up the spoils.

No wonder they call it the War of Northern Aggression! You have no idea what it means to be free.


At least you admit the validity of consent of the governed and secession AND might makes right the only moral argument against it.

[GaryBulguihb]

You're confusing an entangling set of hypothetical circumstances with the underlying principle of consent of the governed.

There is no reason why some compromise regarding the shared propery of the resevoir can't be reached as many sovereign countries have treaties with other countries, e.g., military bases like Fort Sumter.

Not all that hypothetical. Think of that staple of western movie plots: the range war, generally fought over grazing or water rights. You could even make a good argument that the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict has a hefty dose of resource possession mixed in, and there's a situation where compromise is in pretty short supply on both sides. That said I take your point. The problem is that life isn't as simple as being one overiding principle being paramount with all others being subordinate to it. Generally it's a conflicting mass of competing claims, rights, demands , principles and so on - it's a juggling act.



Slavery does not invaldate the principal of consent of the governed. Slaves were involved in EVERY scenario presented. True enough, it doesn't invalidate the principal of consent of the governed. What it does mean is that those who invoke said principle for themselves whilst refusing to grant it to others are pretty hypocritical, and since they don't really believe in it ( else they wouldn't own slaves ) aren't in a position to complain when they themselves are on the rough end of the equation.

[smazibummigue]

With a majority of States opposing government action as outside their proper scope, a scant few peaceful possibilities emerge:
1. Obama abandons Obamacare, his signature legislation.
2. A Constitutional Convention is convened.
3. 10th Amendment remedies are rejoined, e.g., nullification and secession.

Surely you're ignoring the most obvious peaceful solution: vote to change those running the government. If a strong majority of the nation is no longer happy with the government, and they care about it enough to do anything, they have a peaceful, legal and constitutional way to change it. Even the Constitution itself is amendable if the people are sufficiently unhappy with it.

And that, by-the-by, is a tremendous difference between the first and "second" American Revolutions. Colonial America was not represented in the British Parliament; the South had very strong representation in the US Congress (unjustly strong when one remembers the 3/5ths compromise).

[Accor$314]

BTW, The 2nd American Revolution goes by other names too. One is rather neutral, The War Between The States. Another by who initiated violence, The War of Northern Aggression. The least appropriate and unfortunately most common name is civil war. The reason "civil war" is an improper term to describe the conflict is because in a civil war, they are fighting for control of the existing government. Had the South won, Lincoln would still be President of the USA.

I am at a lose as to how anything would have been better had the South won.

[Buyemae]

If states could freely secede (and potentially re-join), can you imagine the political games that would be played along those lines? I mean if CA (or Texas or NY) threatened to Secede, given the vast scale of its economy (silicon valley particularly), can you imagine the political and economic favors that would be thrown its way in order to tempt it into not seceding?

No, secession cannot be allowed. If you really hate the USA that much you're free to emigrate to another country.

Well fucking said.

And I thought we were supposed to be the "unpatriots!"

[primaveraloler]

True enough, it doesn't invalidate the principal of consent of the governed. What it does mean is that those who invoke said principle for themselves whilst refusing to grant it to others are pretty hypocritical, and since they don't really believe in it ( else they wouldn't own slaves ) aren't in a position to complain when they themselves are on the rough end of the equation.

So ... it doesn't invalidate the principal of consent of the governed (in theory) but in practice, well!

[seervezex]

Surely you're ignoring the most obvious peaceful solution: vote to change those running the government. .

We are too divided for either side to be happy in any election result.

And that, by-the-by, is a tremendous difference between the first and "second" American Revolutions. Colonial America was not represented in the British Parliament; the South had very strong representation in the US Congress (unjustly strong when one remembers the 3/5ths compromise).

The 3/5th's compromise was made by the South, resulting in them has less representation in Congress.

Consent does not have ANYTHING to do with representation.

[MrGunjMan_]

Surely you're ignoring the most obvious peaceful solution: vote to change those running the government. If a strong majority of the nation is no longer happy with the government, and they care about it enough to do anything, they have a peaceful, legal and constitutional way to change it. Even the Constitution itself is amendable if the people are sufficiently unhappy with it.

The trouble with this is that for any revolution, peaceful or by force, a sufficient number of recognised people need to be united under one banner. The reason this hasn't happened peacefully with the abuses most people see from the government is that the extremists get all the press.

I honestly don't see a peaceful revolution ever happening in America. The wide swath of moderates making up most of the country won't have a unified leadership until the establishment has gone too far to make the legislative process useful.

[AdvertisingPo]

We are too divided for either side to be happy in any election result.

It's not about being "happy"; it's about having one's voice heard and being part of the process. Indeed, the fact that neither side is completely happy is often a good sign; it means that neither succeeded in totally dominating the other.

Being unhappy with the government doesn't entitled one to simply exempt oneself from its laws and institutions.

The 3/5th's compromise was made by the South, resulting in them has less representation in Congress.

Less than if every slave had counted as a citizen, but considerably more than if the slaves hadn't counted at all.

And since the South (generally) didn't consider slaves citizens and southern politicians certainly didn't go to Congress to represent the interests of slaves, it seems entirely unjust that they were counted at all.

Consent does not have ANYTHING to do with representation.

I didn't say it did. I said that the presence of a representative system, of a legal way of altering government, separated the American Revolution from Southern Secession.

And for what it's worth, I'm half inclined to doubt the moral legitimacy of America's continuing the War of Independence past 1778; the Carlisle Commission would likely have granted Americans all the representation, liberties and self-government they had demanded in 1774, everything short of independence, perhaps. A lot of people died over the next six years.

[Angry White American]

I didn't say it did. I said that the presence of a representative system, of a legal way of altering government, separated the American Revolution from Southern Secession.

And for what it's worth, I'm half inclined to doubt the moral legitimacy of America's continuing the War of Independence past 1778; the Carlisle Commission would likely have granted Americans all the representation, liberties and self-government they had demanded in 1774, everything short of independence, perhaps. A lot of people died over the next six years.

America's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Revolution is not about representation but consent.

When I wrote no matter who wins the election half the country is not happy I mean to say, they are on the edge of withdrawing their consent. Obviously Conservative voices are not being "heard" when Obamacare gets passed, illegal immigration gets ignored in AZ. Conversely, the Liberals voices are not being heard when Obamacare is overturned and there is a crack down on illegal immigration.

[Khcyhshq]

America's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Revolution is not about representation but consent.

To say that the American Revolution was not about representation flies in the face of history and defies the rhetoric of those who carried it out. The revolutionaries constantly brought up the colonies lack of representation in Parliament as justification for their actions.

When I wrote no matter who wins the election half the country is not happy I mean to say, they are on the edge of withdrawing their consent. Obviously Conservative voices are not being "heard" when Obamacare gets passed, illegal immigration gets ignored in AZ. Conversely, the Liberals voices are not being heard when Obamacare is overturned and there is a crack down on illegal immigration.

Of course they're being heard (good lord, didn't you turn on the TV or radio before the election). They just aren't having their way. Being part of a democratic system means being mature enough to accept that I won't always get my way, that sometimes I will be in the minority.

[Trientoriciom]

I honestly don't see a peaceful revolution ever happening in America.

I pray you are wrong. Since America's 2nd Revolution, there have been dozens of peaceful sessions (and attempts), including Canada from UK, Quebec from Canada, Denmark from Sweden, Russia from USSR, Georgia from Russia.

[dietpillxanaxaxx]

To say that the American Revolution was not about representation flies in the face of history and defies the rhetoric of those who carried it out. The revolutionaries constantly brought up the colonies lack of representation in Parliament as justification for their actions.

You must be joking or sophomoric. If the colonies got representation, they would have got overwhelmed. The issue was about taxation, about over reaching government. Any serious reading of American history shows the issue of representation was merely a rallying cry for the ignorant masses.

Of course they're being heard (good lord, didn't you turn on the TV or radio before the election). They just aren't having their way. Being part of a democratic system means being mature enough to accept that I won't always get my way, that sometimes I will be in the minority.

Mature enough? You suppose revolutions throughout history are due to a lack of maturity on the side of the losers? LOL

[whatisthebluepill]

I pray you are wrong. Since America's 2nd Revolution, there have been dozens of peaceful sessions (and attempts), including Canada from UK, Quebec from Canada, Denmark from Sweden, Russia from USSR, Georgia from Russia.

Canada has not seceded from the UK.

Quebec has not seceded from Canada.

Denmark did not secede from Sweden.

Russia did not secede from the USSR.

Georgia did not secede from Russia.

[Texdolley]

C
Russia did not secede from the USSR.

Technically it did. Of course, since the USSR was, in terms of its relations with member republics, merely the Russian Empire modernized, and the equality of republics within it as much a fiction as the democratic quality of the system as a whole, that amounted to Russia giving up the empire and not to a true secession.

Everything else you said was true.

[infarrelisam]

Technically it did. Of course, since the USSR was, in terms of its relations with member republics, merely the Russian Empire modernized, and the equality of republics within it as much a fiction as the democratic quality of the system as a whole, that amounted to Russia giving up the empire and not to a true secession.

Everything else you said was true.

All right, my bad. Technically it was Russia/Ukraine/Belarus' secession which dissolved the USSR.

But, in the spirit of his claim, I'd still say that I'm correct - Russia didn't secede from a still-extant USSR.