Replies

DiogenesLamp on secession: "If it is a natural right as our founders have articulated, then it does not need permission from any man made body to assert it.
It comes from God, not man."

Sure, but the fact is that no Founder -- not one -- ever asserted a "natural right" to unilaterally abrogate solemn national compacts for no good reason, "at pleasure".

Indeed, that was precisely the sin committed by Brits on May 24, 1774, when they unilaterally and at pleasure abrogated their 83 year-old compact, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691.
Their act of unilateral abrogation is what made British rule over Massachusetts invalid, and justified all American actions leading up to Revolutionary War.

And just like those Brits, in 1861 Confederates unilaterally and at pleasure abrogated their 84 year-old compact, the US Constitution.
Their act of unilateral abrogation is what made Confederate claims over Federal properties (i.e., Fort Sumter) invalid, and justified all Union actions leading up to Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "Is your right to own a gun subject to Congress?
Is it subject to a majority? Or is it a basic human right?
So is the right of association and it's corollary the right of disassociation."

But there is no "God given right", and no Founder ever asserted such a "right" to unilaterally abrogate a solemn national compact "at pleasure".

Just the opposite, our Founders went to great pains to explain in their Declaration of Independence that they were not, to use the later term, "seceding" at pleasure, but only after years of negotiations and a long series of major, material breaches by the Brits, breaches detailed in their Declaration, including for one:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. "

By sharp contrast, Confederates "Reasons for Secession" detailed not one actual material breach of the Constitution, but only their fears of what "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans might do at some time in the future!.
So it was strictly, 100% a secession "at pleasure" for which neither our Founders, nor anybody else, ever asserted a God-given "natural right".

Sure, you don't like it, but those are the facts, sir.

Indeed, that was precisely the sin committed by Brits on May 24, 1774, when they unilaterally and at pleasure abrogated their 83 year-old compact, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691. Their act of unilateral abrogation is what made British rule over Massachusetts invalid, and justified all American actions leading up to Revolutionary War.

Yeah, they did have the right to abrogate that charter. According to their form of government, that was perfectly legal.

It is starting to get funny reading your arguments while noting your seemingly complete inability to see the parallels with the Confederates in the civil war or how the two events were alike. On the one hand, you simply want the Confederates to be the bad guys, and on the other you want the Crown to be the bad guys, and you are perfectly willing to do logical backflips to marry those two ideas together.

The fact that the Crown far better represents the actions of the Union, and that the Confederates far better represent the actions of the Colonists, is simply something you cannot accept, and so here you are constantly splitting hairs and drawing distinctions without a difference in an effort to rationalize your logical conundrum.

Like I said, it's getting pretty funny. :)