Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[x]

The Constitution says that the Constitution is the law of the land.

You don't get to declare that it isn't anymore, that it doesn't apply to you.

Have you absorbed anything people have said to you? Does it all just go in one ear and out the other?

Unilateral secession doesn't work. It doesn't provide an authoritative and accepted structure to settle things.

When it's tried it usually results in war.

The Constitution is not a treaty. It's a contract.

The country isn't a loose alliance of independent or sovereign states, but a federation in which sovereignty and authority are shared, so dissolving the union isn't something any part of it can do at will.

The attempt at unilateral secession was a mistake. We can see now that it was a mistake and how it was a mistake, and we can learn from the mistake.

You may not see it or want to see it or may wish that it was otherwise. Maybe that's understandable, but it's your own problem, not anybody else's.

[rockrr]

I think JCB is just funning with us now - no one can be that obdurate - can they?

[Sloth]

My only comment is that there is always an inherent right to secede.

[central_va]

Can one hate FedGov™ and still love his state/region/country? Well can he bootlicker? Or does one have to kowtow to Federal power to be a patriot?

[central_va]

The only state to ever unilaterally secede was South Carolina. After Mississippi seceded then it was no longer “unilateral”.

[trisham]

625 posts so far. :)

[rockrr]

That word doesn’t mean what you think it means...

[central_va]

Who asked you?

[rockrr]

Open forum - don’t like it, don’t post idiocies.

[0.E.O]

...and still love his state/region/country?

Or at least two out of three.

[0.E.O]

The only state to ever unilaterally secede was South Carolina. After Mississippi seceded then it was no longer “unilateral”.

Go look up 'unilateral' in the dictionary and then get back to us.

[central_va]

Ok, what about unilateral don’t you understand? Are just trying to be stupid. Yes, all agree that South Carolina unilaterally seceded. Mississippi did not. By definition a Confederacy IS NOT UNILATERAL.

[0.E.O]

That word doesn’t mean what you think it means...

Hallo. Is your name Inego Montoya?

[central_va]

By definition a Confederacy cannot be formed unilateral.

You guys are not on your game tonite, better reform.

[0.E.O]

You guys are not on your game tonite, better reform.

Maybe. But at least we can all use a dictionary.

u·ni·lat·er·al
/ˌyo͞onəˈlatərəl/
Adjective

1. relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2. undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.

Synonyms one-sided

Now tell us where rebel secession was a mutual decision, agreed to by both sides of the issue and then you can accuse us of being off our game.

[central_va]

It was a mutual decision among 11 southern states, almost 13 states.

[rockrr]

That’s just silly - even for you.

[0.E.O]

It was a unilateral decision in that the side of secession walked out, grabbed everything they could get their hands on, repudiated responsibility for obligation the country entered into while they were a part and the side that got shafted had no say in the matter, were not consulted, and did not have a chance for their side to be considered.

Like I said; look at a dictionary why don't you?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

He probably thinks the dictionary is some haughty Yankee trick.

[Sherman Logan]

You can argue that the South was misguided, but you cannot argue they did not have the authority, as free men and free people, to do what they did attempt.

Sure I can.

The Declaration was in its essence a moral document. It was intended to define the conditions under which rebellion was morally justified and was quite specific about it.

Rebellion is morally justified when the existing government becomes destructive of the ends for which the Declaration says governments exist: To protect the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rebellions engaged in for the purpose of depriving other humans of these rights are not and cannot be morally justified under the conditions specified by the Declaration.

If any and all rebellions or revolts are justified simply because some people choose to rebel, then the various Communist and other revolutions were justifiable under the principle of the Declaration of Independence. And they weren't, since their entire purpose was to deprive other humans of the rights the DOI champions.

Similarly, since the purpose of secession was not to expand the rights of men, but rather to prevent any such possible expansion, secession cannot be morally justified by the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

This is not to say that the Founders were stupid enough to not realize that any rebellion with enough physical force behind it could win. They knew that. Which is why the Declaration addressed the morality of revolution, not its practical power to make itself effective.