Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[ QUOTE ]
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but thanks for yet another strawman. Of course, there were loyalists in the colonies, and there were northerners that opposed "reunification efforts".

I'm not here to defend the CSA. It certainly wasn't a paragon of virtue. However, the idea that any regime that isn't 100% completely legitimate is fair game for any other non-100% completely legitimate regime to conquer, subjugate, and pillage is, frankly, repulsive.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I hope you at least see the irony of your statement.

I think that representation in this case does mean there is a binding effect. Like a contract, I guess. You can't dissolve a contract if the other signatory doesn't agree, can you?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I hope you at least see the irony of your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only ironic if you look at the situation in a limited way. The fact that CSA allowed slavery (which the USA also did) justifies enslaving the entire country and killing 600,000 people? Two wrongs make a right?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that representation in this case does mean there is a binding effect. Like a contract, I guess. You can't dissolve a contract if the other signatory doesn't agree, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the "contract", I suppose. They established the Constitution partly to form a "more perfect Union". So trying to set up a new nation is detrimental to that goal. I'll admit I don't know as much as I'd like to about this area.

[XxGodJrxX]

The Constitution is the contract, all of the southern states had signed it in order for it to be ratified. On the other hand, if they no longer feel that they are being represented under the contract, then why should they not be allowed to get out of it? Kind of like how Locke said that the people have the right to revolt should they feel they are not being represented by the governing body. I think the Confederacy certainly had the RIGHT to get out of the United States for this reason. On the other hand, the Union also had the right to conquer them.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the "contract", I suppose. They established the Constitution partly to form a "more perfect Union". So trying to set up a new nation is detrimental to that goal. I'll admit I don't know as much as I'd like to about this area.

[/ QUOTE ]

They who? As far as I can tell, none of the people that declared secession signed the constitution. How can a man be held to a contract he didn't sign?