Why wrong? Explain your case. The Revolution was secession from England. Why can’t people decide? Why FORCE people to remain tied politically? And, why do conservatives lose their ability to think logically when it comes to the The Civil War? Good questions. Let's start with the last one first. I think that a lot of folks are emotionally invested in the War Between The States. Maybe it is because their ancestors lost a war? Personally I don't understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago, but I accept that there are those who are.
The Revolution was secession from England.
No it wasn't. The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown. The colonials tried for years to make their case for a representational seat at the table and were subjected to true acts of subjugation and tyranny for their efforts. When the Brits attempted to impose the tea tax shipments of tea sat unloaded, rotting at the piers and on the ships because Americans refused to accept the cargo with its poison pill. When the Boston Tea Party occurred the Brits responded by quarantining the harbor. When Americans responded by smuggling supplies into Boston the Brits sent out scouting parties to intercept and arrest them. Then the Brits advanced on Lexington to disarm the colonials. We know what happened next.
By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession. The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation. But that is not how the slavers proceeded. Unlike the colonials, the slavers didn't avail themselves of their constitutional right (and duty) of redress. They didn't take their grievances to congress or the Supreme Court. Instead they turned their back on the United States Constitution and rebelled against their own country. The used the circumstance of the election of Lincoln to begin their insurrection. They began to steal everything and anything that wasn't nailed down and seizing territories - and states - in the name of their confederacy. They openly and defiantly declared their separation and dared the unionists to stop them. And they made war against their neighbors and erstwhile allies. They incited and perpetuated a war that literally tore our country apart.
People can and should decide their own fate. There may again come a time when the people are called upon to decide. I would hope that they do it right next time.
If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving. May we conclude that if they had been more polite they would have been justified?
If one tries to draw a distinction between the American Revolution and the southern secession based on tariff policy disputes, I think you play right into the Confederates hands. Likewise, when the American Navy moved to reinforce Fort Sumter, "we know what happened next." The distinctions are mostly artificial. It is not upon such niceties that great moral questions should be determined. As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.
I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?
As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?
Good questions. Let's start with the last one first. I think that a lot of folks are emotionally invested in the War Between The States. Well, that would explain rockrr's posting history.
Personally I don't understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago, but I accept that there are those who are.
Good! Accepting that there is a problem is really the first step on the path to recovery. Don't try to rush understanding. The breakthroughs will just come when you are really good and ready.
The Revolution was secession from England. No it wasn't.
Partial credit: The Revolution resulted in secession from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, as so named in the 1707 Acts of Union. I predict that you will, in short order, inform us that "Union" and "United..." somehow don't count, in this particular case.
The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown.
You see, HMS Surprise, this fellow has a problem common among leftists; his worldview is so simplistic that he believes that things can only posses one quality at a time. Because of this, he thinks that any attribute assigned to an object of study disproves all remaining properties. Observe: 'the soup is hot, and so cannot also be salty', 'the dog is tired, and so cannot also be shaggy', 'the shoes are matched, and so cannot also be leathern', 'the Revolutionary War was a rebellion, and so cannot also have been an act of secession'. See how it works?
The colonials tried for years to make their case for a representational seat at the table and were subjected to true acts of subjugation and tyranny for their efforts. When the Brits attempted to impose the tea tax shipments of tea sat unloaded, rotting at the piers and on the ships because Americans refused to accept the cargo with its poison pill. When the Boston Tea Party occurred the Brits responded by quarantining the harbor. When Americans responded by smuggling supplies into Boston the Brits sent out scouting parties to intercept and arrest them. Then the Brits advanced on Lexington to disarm the colonials. We know what happened next.
They declared their intent to secede from the political union which bound them to the Crown based, not on any legal right recognized within the applicable courts, but rather, on the natural right of self-determination from which all developed political power (theoretically) flows.
By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession.
So, the arguement is that the Revolution was not an act of secession because it is dislike the Civil War which, according to you, was also not an act of secession.
The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation.
I'm pretty sure that is a definition you just spun out of whole cloth and tailored to suit your purpose. "Secession" is just a latinate word for 'withdrawl'.
But that is not how the slavers proceeded. Unlike the colonials, the slavers didn't avail themselves of their constitutional right (and duty) of redress. They didn't take their grievances to congress or the Supreme Court. Instead they turned their back on the United States Constitution and rebelled against their own country.
Note well, HMS Surprise, the ridiculous double standard rockrr employs here. It is his usual method. The "slavers" are called such because they maintained the SAME slavery practiced by their colonial ancestors. Besides, to be both 'slave holder' and 'colonist' at the same time would violate the rule-of-singular-quality described above.
They used the circumstance of the election of Lincoln to begin their insurrection. They began to steal everything and anything that wasn't nailed down and seizing territories - and states - in the name of their confederacy. They openly and defiantly declared their separation and dared the unionists to stop them. And they made war against their neighbors and erstwhile allies. They incited and perpetuated a war that literally tore our country apart.
Finally, he caps his proof of dissimilarity with a list of things common to both. The harder he tries, the harder he fails.