Ummm, didn’t we settle this question, oh, around 144 years ago?
“Ummm, didn’t we settle this question, oh, around 144 years ago?”
Maybe for you authoritarian statists. :)
“A question, settled by force of arms, remains forever unsettled.”
Is that when history stopped happening?
Agreements imposed by war can be undone by war.
As the body count built into the many hundreds or even thousands from feints, probes and sabre rattling and as alliances and divisions became hardened would the modern electorate really act the same way that those hardened white males did 144 years ago?
Would our military entanglements and obligations around the world even allow for a military challenge of that scale?
I don't think the mushy blue state voters and the female voters would elect politicians that wanted to start a bloody war here in America just to keep some states from what would amount to seceding on paper, (since our relationships would be mostly the same).
Not really. We won a war against those who wanted to do so, so they could maintain their slave based economy. And that was an issue that had been festering since the Constitution was written. We won the war and wrote into law that slavery was illegal. I don't recall any amendments on secession.
As said earlier in this thread, the Constitution is silent on the matter. The Declaration however, spelled out quite clearly that there are valid reasons for doing so, and when those long trains of abuse finally get too much, then not only is it a people's right, it's their duty.
Having done just that, how could the Founders deny the possibility to future generations if their little "experiment" in human government failed.
To be sure, it should not be undertaken for light and transient causes, and the Founders did give us plenty of tools for redress of grievances. Secession would be the final tool for the final straw.
I think you mean 233 years ago.