I'll take it as a settled matter that you believe that the appearance of the word "secession" itself is a necessary component of the action. You can't really claim otherwise when you attempt to prove that a separation event is not secession because you don't see the word.
The reason is obvious: because those words only apply in cases of voluntary political (or otherwise) units such as the new American constitutional republic.
I think it's funny that you claim it's "obvious" that the secession label is misapplied because that usage varies from a definition of the term you just made up. I'll take this, too, as one your criteria for determining true secession.
For Founders, the word "independence" itself necessarily implied Revolutionary War, but in 1776 there was nothing theoretical about it -- war was already upon them, long before they even considered declaring independence.
There is nothing about the appearance of the word "independence" which implies war. Every English-speaking member of the Commonwealth of Nations has had its independence recognized without war with Britain. But let the record show that BroJoeK also considers the absence of the precondition of war to be yet another defining point of secession.
Indeed, for our Founders, their Declaration of Independence was a response to the war already being waged on them by the British Empire. So I'll say it again: in 1776 the Declaration of Independence did not create something new -- independence -- but simply formally acknowledged what had already happened as a result of Britain's war on its American colonies.
And here is proof positive that you can be backed into any position, no matter how ridiculous, because there is nothing you would not claim if you thought it suited to your purpose.
The signers were actively declaring their independence, not passively receiving it as aggrieved victims. The document clearly begins with the position that they who would sever a political union with others are obligated to state their cause for separation. The document then proceeds to give a litany of colonial complaints, which pretty much identifies them as the separatists, and then concludes with the very act itself being executed in record by self-identified signatories ("We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America"). They were certainly not claiming that they just found themselves in the condition of independence, having been left there by the British. They weren't claiming that the abuses of the Crown created independence circumstantially, they were claiming that they were "impelled" by the abuses "to dissolve the political bands" themselves.
By stark contrast, in 1860 there was no "war" on the Slave-Power, no breaches of constitutional contract, no "oppressions" or "usurpations" by the Federal government. Therefore, the Slave-Powers' Declarations of Secession (not "Independence") were strictly "at pleasure", and therefore not according to our Founders Original Intent.
I note that you require more preconditions before recognizing a true secession. You now also require an absence of oppressions or usurpation, meaning, apparently, that seceding parties had better not have any real reason to secede or else, according to your ever-changing definition, it ceases to be secession at all.
In fact, you are playing "word games", hoping to equate the 1776 Declaration of Independence with 1860-1 Declarations of Secession. Aside from the fact that both intended to announce political separations, they are quite different.
Secession is the act which produces independence just as stepping produces a footfall. Besides, my argument this whole time was that an act of "secession" could also be an act of "rebellion".
Brass Lamp: "Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit." BroJoeK: But never correctly used to refer to colonies seeking independence from their imperial masters.
And here is another refinement for your mutable definition of secession. It must now also exclude colonial and imperial parties. This definition is looking less natural or "obvious" by the second.
Actually, one of our slave-holding Founders, to his eternal credit, tried to condemn slavery in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, Jefferson's efforts were overruled by others, but he at least understood that slavery was morally wicked, and should be gradually abolished. So did other slave-holders of that generation, including George Washington.
And you can't deny that had Washington and Jefferson somehow lived to see the 1860s, you would have to call them members of the "Slave Power" for no other reason than that it suites your purpose to call them so at that time in history. If I push you into a discussion of THAT term, you'll likely slide around as freely as you do in trying to define secession.
Why would you claim that the existence of unrepresentative governments is somehow a matter of debate, rather than a statement of fact?
I am the one who stated their existence as a matter of fact and I was incredulous that 0.E.O would debate the matter by asking for examples. This is recorded in the body this thread, so you're not going to get away with some verbal sleight-of-hand in suggesting that I thought it debatable at all.
Your dispute with O.E.O. is not over the existence of unrepresentative governments, but whether such governments can be called "political unions" from which one might "secede" -- for example, the American colonies then subject to the British Empire.
Another nip and tuck in tailoring a designer definition of secession (can now only secede from representative governments)...another game of word-find since TJ wrote "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", and not "dissolve the political union"...and another slippery definition for a previously understood word if "political bands which have connected them with another" isn't very meaning of the word "union".
In normal American usage, the word "union" implies a voluntary representative organization, which the British Empire was certainly not really ever, and by 1776 becoming ever less so.
The premise of this statement is that how Americans supposedly feel about a word informs its real meaning, but I reject both that premise and the claim about normal usage. Americans never expressed any skepticism about the use of the word "union" when referring to either labor unions or the Soviet Union, even when acknowledging that both feature forced membership. The "union" part wasn't and isn't really challenged because there is such a thing as forced union.
Deny that what happened? The full "reentry" of former Confederate states into normal political processes took some time. So what?
The historical facts simply are what they are, and if you wish to claim that former Confederate states took some years before electing their own representatives and other government officials, that in fact is what happened. So what?
The significance of it is that this was an example of forced union. That's what so. It unexpectedly lead to the following logical syllogism:
If "Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate";
And if "such government" = "political union without representation";
And if you admit that "political union without representation" = "The Union" (by way of apologetics);
Then a simple substitution of terms produces: "Americans have never considered [The Union] as entirely legitimate". Unless that is how you want that line of argument to conclude, you do have a problem with your argument.
Sorry, but as long as words have real meanings, you will never get to redefine this one to suit your pro-Confederate secessionist agenda, FRiend.
Words have real meanings which exist beyond us and our (mis)usage in an unassailable fortress of truth in some principle plane of ideal existence (I'm just little Scholastic Realist). But let's have a look at how you've defined one word, "secession", through the course of this thread.
According to you, secession is (conditions counted): The separation of one party from a voluntary union (1), within a representative government(2), excepting those involuntary unions in which non-consenting parties may be eventually enfranchised (3), in which there is no war (4), no oppression (5), no usurpation or any other reason to seek separation (6), to create a wholly new entity (7), unless the new entity was formerly a colony (8), and unless the former union included an imperial power (9), in which the seceding party must actually use the word "secession" (10) to describe its departure from the union it shared with the remaining party which, itself, must be called "union" (11).
I accused rockrr of concocting a definition out of whole cloth. You, however, have created a patchwork with which to clothe your naked emperor (to continue the metaphor).
And you were just as wrong then.
By your "logic", when as a young man I left my parents' home to start out on life, that was a "separation event", ergo: "secession".
But nobody ever calls such "separation events" secession, because the word is inappropriate to that occasion.
Likewise, nobody refers to 20th century anti-colonial movements as "secessionists".
To pick just one example, when the Belgian Congo declared its independence in June 1960, it was never said to have "seceded" from the Belgian Empire, nor were equivalent words like "withdrawal" or "disunion" used.
Yes, "secession" is used to describe events in the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, but there the word can apply, since despite its basically Stalinist nature, the old Soviet Union did maintain the formalities of a constitutional republic.
And when secession did come, to their credit, the Soviets allowed it to happen relatively peacefully and lawfully.
So there is a very clear distinction of where the term "secession" is appropriate and where not.
And I would challenge, if you disagree, to produce evidence supporting your own opinion.
Brass Lamp: "I think it's funny that you claim it's "obvious" that the secession label is misapplied because that usage varies from a definition of the term you just made up."
I am simply reporting the facts, FRiend.
I say:
Of course, if you can present us with facts to prove otherwise, I'll be most interested to consider them.
Brass Lamp: "There is nothing about the appearance of the word "independence" which implies war.
Every English-speaking member of the Commonwealth of Nations has had its independence recognized without war with Britain."
But in 1776, an American Declaration of Independence certainly did imply war with Britain, since Brits considered even the declaration as treason and rebellion.
In that regard, I'll post yet again the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin, on signing the Declaration:
There were no "ifs, ands or buts" about it: our Founders knew they were committing "treason" against Britain, and so they
But more to the point, I'll repeat: war with Britain was not just some theoretical possibility from the Declaration of Independence, war had been already started by the Brits.
Indeed, it was the war itself which "dissolved the political bands" connecting Brits to their colonies.
So their Declaration of Independence was then a mere formality, putting on paper what had already been accomplished by British armies.
Brass Lamp: "let the record show that BroJoeK also considers the absence of the precondition of war to be yet another defining point of secession."
Let the record show no such thing.
Brass Lamp: "And here is proof positive that you can be backed into any position, no matter how ridiculous, because there is nothing you would not claim if you thought it suited to your purpose.
And here is proof positive that Brass Lamp has run out of real arguments, and so is casting ridiculous aspersions.
Brass Lamp: "They were certainly not claiming that they just found themselves in the condition of independence, having been left there by the British.
They weren't claiming that the abuses of the Crown created independence circumstantially, they were claiming that they were "impelled" by the abuses "to dissolve the political bands" themselves."
Let me suggest to you a simple analogy: when a minister in church says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife", that statement to be seriously valid must reflect what has already happened in the hearts of the couple.
The minister is merely confirming what the couple has already come to feel.
Likewise, the Declaration merely confirms what has already happened in the hearts of Americans.
So note carefully their specific words:
Our Founders are simply reporting "ground truth" which already happened, and that is important to note because nothing similar existed in 1860.
Brass Lamp: "I note that you require more preconditions before recognizing a true secession."
I note that you seem determined to misunderstand what should be clear and obvious: circumstances in 1776 were very dissimilar from those in 1860.
Where Founders in 1776 had valid reasons to "dissolve the political bands" and declare independence, secessionists in 1860 had no such reasons.
Brass Lamp: "You now also require an absence of oppressions or usurpation, meaning, apparently, that seceding parties had better not have any real reason to secede or else, according to your ever-changing definition, it ceases to be secession at all."
Sorry FRiend, but here you're just jabbering nonsense.
I've said nothing of the sort.
Brass Lamp: "Secession is the act which produces independence just as stepping produces a footfall."
I'll say it again: the word "secession" is never used for colonies declaring independence from their imperial masters.
If you disagree with that, then prove me wrong -- show actual examples -- i.e., news reports or recognized history books -- where colonies were said to "secede".
Brass Lamp: "Besides, my argument this whole time was that an act of 'secession' could also be an act of 'rebellion'."
But the great modern example of large scale secessions (where the term is correctly used) is the dissolution of the old Soviet Union.
Those secessions did not result in major rebellions, insurrections or war.
Nor, and this is an important point, did secessions in 1860-1 cause the Civil War.
For six months after secession began there was no war, and indeed, President Lincoln in his March 4 inaugural address announced that there could be no war, unless secessionists started it, which they promptly did.
Brass Lamp: "And here is another refinement for your mutable definition of secession.
It must now also exclude colonial and imperial parties.
This definition is looking less natural or "obvious" by the second."
Wrong, that has been my point from the beginning, and only your thick-headed denials of obvious good English language usage have kept these lengthy posts going.
As soon as you confess that the word "secession" does not apply to our Founders' Declaration of Independence, then this discussion will end, FRiend.
Brass Lamp: "And you can't deny that had Washington and Jefferson somehow lived to see the 1860s, you would have to call them members of the "Slave Power" for no other reason than that it suites your purpose to call them so at that time in history."
According to Gary Wills' 2003 book The Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power, the term "Slave Power" was coined by Federalists who referred to Jefferson as "the Negro President" because his victory over John Adams in 1800 was based solely on the 3/5 representation rule for slaves.
Without that rule, John Adams would have been reelected.
So yes in fact, in 1800 Jefferson became part of the "slave power".
He was the nation's first "Negro President".
Brass Lamp: "This is recorded in the body this thread, so you're not going to get away with some verbal sleight-of-hand in suggesting that I thought it debatable at all."
What the record shows is that O.E.O. asked you reasonable questions and you responded with your typically snooty, evasive answers.
Brass Lamp: "Another nip and tuck in tailoring a designer definition..."
Another typically snooty, evasive response.
Brass Lamp: "Unless that is how you want that line of argument to conclude, you do have a problem with your argument."
You've just put a lot of effort into misunderstanding my entirely reasonable points, FRiend.
Brass Lamp: "let's have a look at how you've defined one word, "secession", through the course of this thread.
What you stated is sheer nonsense.
My argument is not that difficult, and even geniuses like you and (oh, say Mike Church) should be capable of grasping it: