-— Attacking Lincoln and supporting the Confederacy is just another juvenile way to shock, like shouting the “f-word” in public -—
I loom at it this way. If secession from Britain was morally licit, why isn’t secession from the USA?
-— Attacking Lincoln and supporting the Confederacy is just another juvenile way to shock, like shouting the “f-word” in public -—
I loom at it this way. If secession from Britain was morally licit, why isn’t secession from the USA?
An evolutionist defending the Confederacy. How apropos.
No healthy nation will surrender its territory, however it started out. The instinct of self-preservation is as strong among states as it is individuals.
The men who led the Revolution to a man condemned people who resisted the US government. Even Samuel Adams advocated the death penalty for the agitators of Shays' Rebellion because he held disobedience to the law of a Republic is not legitimate. And long before Linclon George Washington personally led federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. Does that make them hypocrites?
In 1787-88 the United States Constitution was adopted. While the US may have won independence as thirteen sovereign states the Constitution created a nation--not a "compact" or "alliance." Why don't you read it some time? You will also read that it provides for the suspension of habeas corpus and defines "treason" as "waging war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Thomas Jefferson was never at any time a party to the creation of this document. Alexander Hamilton (and George Washington and Gouverneur Morris and numerous other Federalists) were.
It's true that a more centralized government is easier to corrupt than a less centralized one, but if one were to carry this argument to its logical conclusion no state would ever be created or exist. I also find it a bit hypocritical to find a Roman Catholic arguing against a centralized government. Why aren't you consistent when you argue with Eastern Orthodox?
Great Britain denied the colonists their right of representation.
The USA gave the states of the putative Confederacy more representation than they were actually entitled to.
The US left the UK because the UK denied them any voice in the nation's counsels.
The "CSA" left the USA because the USA refused to guarantee them a perpetual veto in the US Senate.
The "CSA" had no grounds for grievance whatsoever. They could not, under any formulation of the moral law as argued by your namesake, claim legitimate grounds for insurrection.