In other words, since secession is not mentioned in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, it is your position that it was therefore not a right in 1860.
That dovetails perfectly into the Authoritarian Maxim -- WHATEVER IS NOT EXPLICITLY PERMITTED IS FORBIDDEN.
The now totally ignored Tenth Amendment, however, specifically states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It is undeniable that it was far better for the World that the United States of America stayed united in the 19th Century.
However, it would also have been far better if the issue had been decided through the rule of law in accordance to what the Constitution actually says than through the deaths of 620,000 Americans..........A total that, in comparison to populations, would today be the equivalent of approximately 5.8 million American deaths.
Now here is a future hypothetical question that IMHO recreates the mindset of the South in 1860:
Let us say that the Constitution of the European Union is ratified by all present members and that the E.U. Constitution is silent about the issue of secession. Let us say that, in 20 years, Britain is dissatisfied with the European Union and desires to revert to its prior status as a sovereign nation but Germany and France are dead set against that.
Does Britain have a right to secede from the European Union?
Do France and Germany have the right to keep Britain in the European Union by force of arms?
Does Britain have a right to secede from the European Union?
Do France and Germany have the right to keep Britain in the European Union by force of arms?
At present a member state can leave simply by repealing its assent to the EU treaty, according to its own governmental procedures. Greenland opted out when it was still under Danish rule.
Under article I-60 of the proposed constitution a state can announce its intention to withdraw according to its own constitutional procedures. Once the state announces its intention to withdraw, the Union and the state are to negotiate the terms of the withdrawal and set out the future terms of relationship between the EU and the exiting state. If the negotiations are unsuccessful, after two years, the state becomes independent anyway.
You can see first of all, that the EU constitution would explictly allow for the possibility of withdrawal. It also requires that the Union and the state try to work out the terms of withdrawal. It doesn't allow the state simply to say that it is leaving on its own terms. It provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts through negotiation and allows a state to leave anyway if negotiations fail.
All in all it seems like a sensible set of provisions, designed to lessen conflicts. If the EU had built bases or dams in one country or had gold reserves stored there, it wouldn't be fair for a state to simply claim those as its own without the Union at least making its case heard. It wouldn't be wise for a country to unilaterally cancel its debts to the Union or to join a rival alliance before the EU had had its say in the matter.
The US Constitution of 1787 is different. It has never explicitly allowed for unilateral secession, and now it explicitly bans it.
Well if the situations are so similar then I'm sure that you can post the relevant sections of the European constitution and show how they relate to the U.S. Constitution. And while you're at it please point out which southern state enjoyed the same level of autonomy in terms of managing their internal and their external affairs as any one of the European countries do. Once we've laid the groundwork then no doubt we can debate your point.
That put a shiver down my back. I was just thinking if the WBTS was set in 2006, how many folks would go back and side with their home state. Would be an interesting discussion, even though "what-if" threads quickly deteriorate.
What Secession is is revolution.
The 'right' of revolution is clearly stated in the Declaration.
However a revolution should be because there is no other options and real abuses.
Now, as far as I can tell, the real persons who had a right to revolt were the black slaves, a revolt the South was in constant terror of.
The now totally ignored Tenth Amendment, however, specifically states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There is no power to 'secede', only to revolt.
The States were not quasi-nations, they were part of the Union, and they were never independent nations (with the exception of Texas).
It is undeniable that it was far better for the World that the United States of America stayed united in the 19th Century. However, it would also have been far better if the issue had been decided through the rule of law in accordance to what the Constitution actually says than through the deaths of 620,000 Americans..........A total that, in comparison to populations, would today be the equivalent of approximately 5.8 million American deaths.
It would have been far better if the South had realized the immorality of holding 3 million people in bondage in direct violation of their natural rights.
Now here is a future hypothetical question that IMHO recreates the mindset of the South in 1860: Let us say that the Constitution of the European Union is ratified by all present members and that the E.U. Constitution is silent about the issue of secession. Let us say that, in 20 years, Britain is dissatisfied with the European Union and desires to revert to its prior status as a sovereign nation but Germany and France are dead set against that.
The States were never sovereign nations.
The EU is made up of a coalition of nations, which the USA was not.
The States were never nations in their own right, they were always the 'United States Of America.
George Washington wanted to be thought of as an American, not a Virginian.
Does Britain have a right to secede from the European Union? Do France and Germany have the right to keep Britain in the European Union by force of arms?
The analogy is not a correct one.
Both joined the EU as independent nations.
The States had never been nations and had agreed to the US Constitution to make the Union a stronger one, not weaker.