Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did the colonies have the right to secede from England?
Maybe, maybe not. But they did have the power and ability.
In any event analogies between the rebels of 1775 and 1861 are superficial. The colonists rebelled because they lacked power within the government by which they were ruled. The rebels of 1861 had an equal share of power within the government but rebelled simply because they didn't approve of the outcome of an election. That leads to anarchy.
Can you imagine a nation in which those who don't approve of the outcome of an election have the right to rebel? That would be the end of elective representative government as we practice it, on our take on democracy. Such government only works when there's an understanding the the losers of political battles abide by the results and try the next time. Compromise and reasonableness have served this nation well but the rebels of 1861 refused to compromise, refused to be reasonable and thus plunged our nation into rebellion and bloody civil war.
Well it doesn't matter anyway, the issue is long since settled despite the whining of neo-Con cranks and misanthropes. This is all I have to say on it here as we're getting far off topic and I tire of pointing out the obvious to the obtuse, anyone who wants to can take it up with me can do so on the history forum.
[quote=Irishtom29;4440698]Can you imagine a nation in which those who don't approve of the outcome of an election have the right to secede?[/quote]
Yes, and so could Jefferson and Madison and later, almost every newspaper editor in the north and most politicians in the north.
Ironically, you use an interesting dichotomy of words. "Right" and "rebel" don't belong together. Therefore I fixed it for you. The states have an inherent right to sovereignty, except for the few specific rights given to the Fed. Thankfully, Montana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Vermont, and others are starting to be more assertive in those rights.
Maybe, maybe not. But they did have the power and ability.
Yep, this is true. The winners write the history and what you are saying boils down to "might makes right."
Quote:
In any event analogies between the rebels of 1775 and 1861 are superficial. The colonists rebelled because they lacked power within the government by which they were ruled. The rebels of 1861 had an equal share of power within the government but rebelled simply because they didn't approve of the outcome of an election. That leads to anarchy.
Sure, just like the history of slavery and repressive laws in the northern states forbidding black residency are often avoided, as a topic, so is it easy, arguing from result, to try and put distance between the basic concept of why the colonies seceded and why did the seven states of the Lower South. It always amuses me a bit when some confronted with that basic question, scramble to draw distinctions that don't hold water.
Back when I was in college (the first go around, too many years ago! LOL), I walked into a History of the Western World class one day and the professor announced "Today, I am going to give you the British side of what we call the American Revolution."
I was taken aback. It had literally never occured to me the British HAD a side! And to the extent I had thought about it at all (which was never) I figured it was well covered by what I had always read in my American history classes. Which is to say, really, the British side as told from the American side! LOL
The same thing applies quite a bit to what might either be called the The Civil War or The War Between the States (to use the two nicer yet differing terms!).
Incidently, the presentation was very interesting and informative. It didnt' change my mind on who was right of course, but the British view made perfectly good sense from their perspective and it certainly wasn't anything "evil" The larger impact though was the understanding that history is NOT an objective science. It is shaped by people with different visions, cultures, interests, priorities, and just as this will cause conflict, so the later causes and justifications can be legitimately seen from different angles and disagreed upon by reasonable people.
Finally, anyone who really wants to read THE definitive case for the South should check out Jefferson Davis' "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." It is not easy reading, and not "entertaining" reading. But it is the alpha and omega of works meticulously putting forth the Southern viewpoint.
Quote:
Can you imagine a nation in which those who don't approve of the outcome of an election have the right to rebel? That would be the end of elective representative government as we practice it, on our take on democracy. Such government only works when there's an understanding the the losers of political battles abide by the results and try the next time. Compromise and reasonableness have served this nation well but the rebels of 1861 refused to compromise, refused to be reasonable and thus plunged our nation into rebellion and bloody civil war.
Can you imagine that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a federation upon which the basic ideal was "consentual government" and "government derives it powers from the consent of the governed" would have approved using force against soveriegn states which wanted nothing more than to peaceably seperate themselves from other states which they no longer felt to be in eithers best interest?
Refused to compromise? The Confederate commisioners went all out to try and work out a peaceable solution. Open up the Mississippi River to free trade and navigation...and solidify a mutual defense and economic alliance between the two nations. In fact, the ONLY reason the Upper States of the South seceded was because Lincoln chose to use force to prevent the states of the Lower South from doing nothing more than just wanting to be left alone and go in peace.
Quote:
Well it doesn't matter anyway, the issue is long since settled despite the whining of neo-Con cranks and misanthropes. This is all I have to say on it here as we're getting far off topic and I tire of pointing out the obvious to the obtuse, anyone who wants to can take it up with me can do so on the history forum.
I shall do so, IrishT. And, once again, you are right...we need to take this elsewhere. Let me end though by responding to your assertion of "issue being settled" with a couple of quotes by Jefferson Davis.
A question settled by force will forever remain unsettled
"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
Ok..outta here for tonight. Not for pizza this time, but fried chicken! LOL
The problem with the Confederate flag is that there is no recognizable symbol of the South on that level, so the instantly recognizable symbol of Southern culture and identification just so happens to belong to a nation that declared war on the United States and separated with the intent of protecting slavery.
I just wish the South could find a better symbol. The other one has more than a little to do with slavery and treason, but it is really all they have to represent the South. I mean there is the Bonnie Blue Flag, but not many people know what it is and those who know a lot of about flags are more likely to mistake it for the flag of Somalia than as a symbol of Southern pride.
Alternatives....hmmm.....okay as I posted this before I'm neither black nor white. For me the Confederate flag represents the good ol'days and I'm not thinking in terms of race (we do that too much in America). For me, the Confederate flag is an anti-establishment symbol that goes against the materialism and shallowness I see daily here in the urban East Coast. It represents a laid-back lifestyle, a time and place when people knew what mattered most in life and didn't just care about making money or proving one's better than everyone else. It represents family values and a sense of community. I kinda want to display the Confederate flag as a "rebel" or anti-establishment thing the same reason ppl wear Che t-shirts or Mumia shirts but while their alternative is a hippie commune or a socialist republic, I'd rather look back on the good ol' days, and I'm thinking more like 1950s, not the antebellum South. I have a couple friends who also use the Confederate flag to show native Maryland or native local pride against newcomers moving in and changing their way of life.
The Bonnie Blue Flag isn't well known enough to be a symbol...I looked it up. For what the Confederate flag represents to me, the best alternative symbol, strange as it may sound, would be John Deere. Also represents a simpler, more innocent, less hectic, less materialistic, less pretentious, more wholesome time and way of life.
So, the Japanese are "losers"? How about the Germans? How about the USA? (We got our butts kicked in Viet Nam, thanks to the democrats.)
Actually, regarding Vietnam, we won every battle there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..
