View single post by MildMan
 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 08:03 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
MildMan
Just Testing Ideas
 

Joined: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 93
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Can we put aside for a minute the question of whether there was sufficient reason to secede for a minute and talk about the right to secede? I think it’s an interesting issue – and I’d like to hear more about how others think about it. I am not a legal scholar but I am not aware that the constitution says anything directly one way or the other about secession. However, it stands to reason that if the founding fathers thought that the constitution needed or should have an exit mechanism for states they would have put one in. Did they discuss this – or did they ignore the issue? Certainly they were a savvy bunch and they knew that all relationships have ups and downs. Did NOT putting in wording on secession mean they wanted the marriage of states to be permanent? Yes, I think they meant for the union to be permanent, but this doesn’t mean that “wanting out” is wrong. Most marriages begin with sacred vows of “until death do us part”, but many end in divorce anyway. It seems to me that in some cases secession or even revolution is the only route to responsive government. But it would be a last resort- not a first resort. It does not appear to me that South Carolina attempted to address secession in legal and peaceful means BEFORE it acted unilaterally and with violence. Forgive this over simplistic analogy, but its kind of like just “announcing” that you are divorced without going to court (making it legal) and then shooting your partner when he or she came to get his or her share of the stuff. I am ok with saying you are going to secede, and then working though peaceful and legal means to make this so. Shouldn’t South Carolina have put forward a bill in Congress to approve its secession as a first step? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court have ruled that secession was illegal before South Carolina decided it was necessary more aggressive steps? Shouldn’t promotion of a constitutional amendment to create rules for secession have been tried first? My sense is that the folks in South Carolina ignored they had committed to a nation of rules and laws, and by acting unilaterally on secession and by firing on fellow citizens they brought on an unnecessary and terrible calamity. Maybe I am naïve but maybe just maybe secession could have happened without killing 750,000 Americans. My gripe is that it is not clear that South Carolina even tried. :shock:

 Close Window