Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
You said, "The Declaration of Independence was an announcement to Great Britain that we no longer recognized their authority."
How is that not withdrawing from our former association with England?
An aspect of secession, as illustrated in more depth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession is identified by the adjective formal - “The act of secession is the formal withdrawal from a union or confederation”.
As in a circumstance such as divorce there is mutuality of terms and purpose between all parties. If you look at the examples at the link you see references to ratifications and negotiated consent.
My point is that there was none of that with the colonialist rebels. It was actually more than just an announcement - it was a throwing down the gauntlet in full recognition of the likely response.
We didn’t simply “withdraw” from British rule - we tore ourselves away from their control. We didn’t secede against their authority - we openly rebelled against it. We didn’t give a damn if they liked it or not - we were beyond “praying for relief” or asking for consideration.
Whatever.
Anyway, “secession” is a legal term of art which legal definition as cited in Black’s Legal Dictionary is the generally accepted definition in the legal profession, not subject to your or Wikipedia’s definition.
Bye.
Yes, and one that is totally inappropriate to the Revolutionary War.
Every schoolboy knows the Constitution (Article I, Section 2) requires the federal government to conduct a census every 10 years.
But a little birdie tells me the word “census” is not mentioned in the constitution.
Everyone, including Abraham Lincoln, knew the U. S. constitution included provisions for slavery.
But a little birdie tells me the word “slavery” is not mentioned in the constitution (until the 13th amendment prohibiting it).
Now a little birdie tells me that the word “secession” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and that the meaning of the phrase “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another . . .” is unknown and unknowable.
When I find the right words I will attempt to explain these very confusing documents.
Meanwhile, let's ponder what Lincoln said: the intent of the lawgiver is the law.
You should probably see someone about those voices in your head.
Well, you are playing with words and semantics.
The legal profession’s definition of “secession” includes “the secession of 11 states at the time of the Civil War”.
It’s your word against the legal profession’s definition of “secession”. I’ll take the legal professions definition over yours.
Bye.
Again.
Right.
Every schoolboy knows that if you describe a thing, you don’t necessarily have to say a particular word that defines the thing.
Mouse nuts.
Not at all but if that makes you feeeeeeeeel better then so be it.
Even you can't distinguish announcement to Great Britain that we no longer recognized their authority from withdrawing from our former association with England.
It's rockrr against the world. Rots a ruck rockrr.
Bye again.
I will try to make this my past post to you in this goofy word-smith discussion.
Outside of a few lost causers I've never heard of anyone using the term secession in place of rebellion or revolution when referring to the Revolutionary War. The generally accepted term is rebellion, not secession. When a person does a web search they get hits (as you pointed out in an earlier thread) to the slavers of 1860 but isn't is curious that there are zero hits for the Revolutionary War. So it isn't me against the mainstream view - it's you.
As you say, "Rots a ruck"
“The Revolutionary War was a war of rebellion against the crown, not secession. That’s what I’m talking about. There’s no mention of secession anywhere in that document.”
The word “rebellion” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence either.
Do you know why?
From the June 29, 1776, Virginia Constitution (Link) which listed grievances against the rule of George III and then declared (red bold emphasis mine):
"By which acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised by the Crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."
Is that formal enough for you? Note that the United States was not mentioned.
Consider South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession (Link2):
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
Sound similar to the 1776 Virginia dissolution? From the Wikipedia link you provided: "Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance.
No. Without concordance it is rebellion, not secession.
Forget about the word "secession" if that makes you feel better.
The first sentence of the D of I declares the necessity "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another".
Are you going to deny that the Revolutionary War was about DISSOLVING political ties with England in the exact wording of the Founders who fought it? Are you also going to deny that the Civil War was about the South DISSOLVING political ties with The Union?
So the principles laid down in the D of I applies to the South and the Civil War.
End of goofy discussion.
Honor, ethics and morality are goofy? In your world maybe but not in mine. Words have meaning and to warp them to fit a desire is contemptible.
I’m amused by people who cannot (or will not) see the distinction between secession, which is the orderly process of ending a treaty, confederacy, or union, and rebellion.
Rebellion, as evidenced by the Colonialists, was standing up to the Crown and defiantly renouncing their allegiance. They did so in the full knowledge that they would encounter violent reprisal and, should they fail, they would all hang.
There was no sugar-coating or pretense to it.
In the case of the Slavers Rebellion, they were the original “word-game” artists, making up the artifice of a unilateral secession in order to make themselves feel better about their insurrection.
If you’re comfortable about words being malleable and meaning whatever, who am I to stop you?
Rots a ruck
Wonderful.
In the meantime, the principles laid down in the D of I applies to the South and the Civil War because both were about DISSOLVING the political bands which had connected them.
Bye and rots a ruck rockrr.
Were the acts of the Southern states in leaving the Union in 1860-61 exactly analogous to the American colonies declaring their independence from the British Crown? The states voluntarily joined and were accepted into the Union. While the colonial governments declared their independence, they did not consent to subjection to the Crown. Britain established the colonies and allowed provincial assemblies to govern most internal matters, subject to royal governors. A better analogy to the colonial declarations of independence is Rhodesia making a unilateral declaration of independence from the Crown in 1965. The Southern states secession is analogous to Ireland declaring its independence, as that country was incorporated into the United Kingdom in 1801. The difference between the Southern and Irish cases is that the Irish Parliament had been dissolved upon joining the UK, while the Southern state governments remained intact. The Irish had to set up a parallel government, complete with military and courts, from scratch during the period of their war for independence. The Southern states had governmental functions in place before and after secession.
Were the acts of the Southern states in leaving the Union in 1860-61 exactly analogous to the American colonies declaring their independence from the British Crown? The states voluntarily joined and were accepted into the Union. While the colonial governments declared their independence, they did not consent to subjection to the Crown. Britain established the colonies and allowed provincial assemblies to govern most internal matters, subject to royal governors. A better analogy to the colonial declarations of independence is Rhodesia making a unilateral declaration of independence from the Crown in 1965. The Southern states secession is analogous to Ireland declaring its independence, as that country was incorporated into the United Kingdom in 1801. The difference between the Southern and Irish cases is that the Irish Parliament had been dissolved upon joining the UK, while the Southern state governments remained intact. The Irish had to set up a parallel government, complete with military and courts, from scratch during the period of their war for independence. The Southern states had governmental functions in place before and after secession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.