Yo, Judge. Unless I'm mistaken, the Brits took a dim view of the colonies "secession" and actually took steps to try and prevent it. If secession was a right in 1776 then why did they have to fight for it?
“Yo, Judge. Unless I’m mistaken, the Brits took a dim view of the colonies ‘secession’ and actually took steps to try and prevent it.”
That has nothing to do with the point at hand.
“If secession was a right in 1776 then why did they have to fight for it?”
Is that an honest question? You could just as easily say natural/human rights don’t exist because throughout most of history governments have failed to recognized them. They don’t have to be recognized for them to exist. Maybe the colonists had no God-given right to declare their independence from Britain, but the reaction of the British leadership could not possibly settle the matter.
Maybe it was a matter of “might makes right” when the colonists won independence. Then again, maybe the British were attempting to use “might makes right” when they fought to keep us under their authority. We tend to think the latter. Maybe we’re wrong. But if you believe in the colonies’ right to revolution, I don’t see why you don’t believe in the Southern states’ right to succession.
You may disagree with the rationale (preserving slavery), or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along). But that does not address succession as such. I believe in my right to revolt if a Stalin were to rise to power in America, but I don’t at all think Obama qualifies.
Because they were subjects of the king, not parties to an agreement entered into voluntarily. Surely you can do better than that.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean someone won't try to take it away. If the feds want to take away my guns, I will fight to retain that right.