Secession

LewRockwell.com ^ | 7/9/02 | Walter Block

[Non-Sequitur]

The latest attempt to equate secession with something entirely different. In one example he equates Indian independence in 1948 with secession, totally ignoring the fact that independence was approved by both the British Parliament and the House of Lords as well as the people of India. In a second example he drags up the tired old comparison with divorce, again ignoring the fact that a divorce usually has the approval of both parties and/or the approval of a third party in the form of a judicial ruling. The southern actions were totally unilateral without the approval, or even the consultation, of all the affected parties. The proper term for it wouldn't be divorce, it would be abandonment which isn't legal.

[Treebeard]

You guys can't get an ezboard or something to hash and rehash this?

[Maelstrom]

That's right, England just rolled over on the first indication that India wasn't at all interested in remaining a colony.

Talk about Non-Sequitur.

[Treebeard]

So, you're saying that one can't declare independence without the consent of the party upon whom the would-be declarer was heretofore dependent?

[Non-Sequitur]

No, your right to revolution is certainly there to use or misuse as you see fit. However, you southron types try to cloak your actions in an aura of legality which it does not deserve. The souther actions were a rebellion, just like those of our founding fathers. The federal government had the duty to try and put down that rebellion, just like the British did. However, two major differences between our founding fathers and the Davis regime are the fact that, unlike the confederate leadership, our founding fathers knew that they would have to fight the British as a result of their actions and did not act all indignant when that happened, and also the fact that, unlike the confederate leadership, our founding fathers won.

[Non-Sequitur]

No, England did not roll over. But to compare the Indian independence with the actions of the southern leaders is absolutely ridiculous. India achieved independence with the agreement of all the parties involved. The southern actions were unilateral. That's why India is independent and the confederacy is not.

[Non-Sequitur]

If these kind of threads annoy you so much then why not make use of that handy little icon on your web browser know as the Back Button and leave us alone to our own devices?

[billbears]

If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.

Ping!!

[Maelstrom]

India achieved independence because Britain didn't want another Revolutionary War.

[Treebeard]

If the editorial from rockwell.com (a site which I've never visited) annoys YOU so much, why drag it over here, REpost it on FR, then ping all your buddies for an impromptu preach to the choir session. Instead, post a rebuttal at Rockwell and let your state of high dudgeon be known at the place it originated (today) ?

Since most of us here know all about you "Nothron types", and factor that knowledge into reading and replying to your posts, all you have done, in effect, is give the editorial with which you disagree a much wider audience, not to mention making yourself look like a water boy for Wlat.

[Non-Sequitur]

India acheived independence because there was a socialist government in England committed to granting them independence. India acheieve independence because all parties concerned agreed on that course. Try reading up on the subject, Mr. Block sure hasn't.

[Non-Sequitur]

'Northron' should be spelled with two r's.

[stainlessbanner]

You guys can't get an ezboard or something to hash and rehash this?

hahahahahahahahah! ezboard - now that's funny!

[Treebeard]

Check your previous posts if you want to edit for spelling and grammar. Non-Sequitur

[sheltonmac]

"However, you southron types try to cloak your actions in an aura of legality which it does not deserve."

However, you northron types still have yet to show where secession is forbidden by the Constitution. You try to cloak secession in an aura of illegality which it does not deserve. You equate secession with rebellion, yet no southern state ever tried to overthrow the government in Washington, D.C., and replace it with one of its own.

[Ditto]

Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves,....

So I guess he's supporting John Brown. I wonder what the Lost Cause Cult thinks of that?

And if secession is such a 'right', why do they complain about the people of western Virginia wanting to seceed from the resty of the state? Or eastern Tennessee breaking with the rest of the state? Were they within their rights, or were they just Hill Billies with no loyality to their "nation' who deserved to be hunted down by the CSA Army?

[Ditto]

You equate secession with rebellion, yet no southern state ever tried to overthrow the government in Washington, D.C., and replace it with one of its own.

"Raise the Flag, & Go!"

South Carolina Governor F. W. Pickens to Gen. James Simons of the 4th Brigade, S.C. Militia.

State of South Carolina
Head Quarters. 20th April 1861

Dear Genl:

The Navy yard at Norfolk is all in flames -- Baltimore unanimous on our side, and all communications with Washington cut off -- & only 5,000 troops in Washington -- it can be taken.

Troops are meeting from Augusta to Norfolk & will be there before we start.

Send Gregg immediately with as many as he can get -- wait not a moment, or we are ruined. I will send companies as fast as possible. Let Gregg start immediately with as many possible -- no delay -- for God sake make every thing move. Let Kershaws start with as many companies as he can get immediately. I have seen Beauregard, & he is sending the detailed orders.

We will be disgraced if Georgia gets there before we do. Raise the flag, & go -- My whole heart is with you. Washington is cut off -- and if we could march on it we could take it -- as Baltimore is a unit for us and Maryland rising. They are alarmed in Va. Genl. Taliaferro & Letcher both telegraph me this morning to push forward.

Truly,

---

[sheltonmac]

Head Quarters. 20th April 1861

That letter was written after the fighting started. Taking Washington would have been the obvious goal in order to force a Union surrender. That does not mean, however, that the goal of the South was to overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with another.

[Ditto]

That letter was written after the fighting started.

Well actually a few days after Southern troops fired on Fort Sumter. The US Army had yet to fire on anyone. But Gov. Pickens and his fire-eating buddies were anxious for action and more than willing to blast the city of Washington.