I'm no fan of Southern apologist historicism, but one can easily say that it was for a state's right to secede. Granted, they seceded to continue slavery, but one can disagree with the CSA's reasons for secession while agreeing with their right to it.
When you boil it down, it really was about state's economies. Slave economies, yes. But the Union was always meant to be a voluntary one. The idea was to avoid bloodshed if some state's differences were irreconcilable.
"But the Union was always meant to be a voluntary one." That's both fundamentally and legally untrue.
The union is indissoluble. Both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution clearly state the words "perpetual union".
By definition:
Perpetual: neverending
Union: the action or fact of joining or being joined, especially in a political context.
Ergo perpetual union: a neverending joining of the states politically.
This is further enforced by the supreme court case: Texas vs White which is where the argument of perpetual union resonates. Chief justice Slamon Chase wrote the majority opinion on the case. I would recommend reading it.
Here's the thing, it doesn't matter what the courts decide. If a state wanted to leave, that is it. The instant a state goes it's own way, it is no longer bound by the old laws.
Except, as Lincoln proved to us, through force of arms.
If a state wanted to leave and somehow succeeded in doing so the state would collapse within a 10 year period.
No country would diplomatically recognize it. No economic opportunity as the US and it's allies would block any and all trade the state attempts.
The state would see the largest mass depopulation to ever occur in North America.
No state could sustain itself food or otherwise on it's own leading to mass starvation.
You can praise the idea of an independent state all you want but it's still a fucking stupid idea.
"Y'all really have an unhealthy amount of trust in a piece of paper being able to help anyone."
Is that not the very same document you entrust to guarantee your 2nd amendment rights? You know how you legally justify you owning firearms?
That paper doesn't guarantee jack shit. I do.
If the paper had any power, I wouldn't feel the need to swear an oath to defend it, now would I?
As for your first comment, we can throw hypotheticals back and forth all night, but it doesn't change the fact that the only guarantee anything has is force of arms. America herself was an illegal endeavor doomed to starve in her first decade, you know.
The paper guarantees quite a bit considering if you go against what is written on it and subsequent laws tied to it you forfeit your right to a lot of the freedoms protected by it. Seems to hold quite a bit of power to me.
-
You took what i said and threw it out because it doesn't agree with your worldview but it's been shown time and time again secessionist movements fail due to lack of international recognition and foreign aid. Look at the Kurds in the middle east and Catalonia in Spain for modern examples.
-
Sorry. But no america was never doomed to starve as you so claim. The union of the states made it so not one state would collapse as all the others were there to keep them going.
So the paper doesn't have power, glad we agree.
There wasn't even an America until the individual states *agreed* of their own accord to come together. And it damn near collapsed a dozen times because of the balancing act required to get each sovereign state to sit at the table, much less actually dedicate to anything.
You think a market like California or Texas can be ignored? Maybe. What about the Northwestern Coalition of Greater Idaho? Or even the People's Republic of New York and Outer Florida?
At no point did i agree with you. I fail to see anywhere we agreed.
And again any secession from the US proper is doomed to fail no matter how many state coalitions you throw in in whatever combination. If the vast majority of states are still in the union then the succession will fail with or without military interference.
So you're actually attributing mystical powers to a piece of paper? Good grief.
And you actually believe that markets bigger than most nations while also having Ocean access and even being comprised of a dozen states wouldn't be able to sustain themselves?
Sounds to me that you just want to believe what you're saying, but Texans ain't the Kurds, and the PNW ain't Catalonia. Just like a piece of paper has no real authority.
The union is indissoluble. Both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution clearly state the words "perpetual union".
By definition:
Perpetual: neverending
Union: the action or fact of joining or being joined, especially in a political context.
Ergo perpetual union: a neverending joining of the states politically.
This is further enforced by the supreme court case: Texas vs White which is where the argument of perpetual union resonates. Chief justice Slamon Chase wrote the majority opinion on the case. I would recommend reading it.
Except, as Lincoln proved to us, through force of arms.
No country would diplomatically recognize it. No economic opportunity as the US and it's allies would block any and all trade the state attempts.
The state would see the largest mass depopulation to ever occur in North America.
No state could sustain itself food or otherwise on it's own leading to mass starvation.
You can praise the idea of an independent state all you want but it's still a fucking stupid idea.
Is that not the very same document you entrust to guarantee your 2nd amendment rights? You know how you legally justify you owning firearms?
If the paper had any power, I wouldn't feel the need to swear an oath to defend it, now would I?
As for your first comment, we can throw hypotheticals back and forth all night, but it doesn't change the fact that the only guarantee anything has is force of arms. America herself was an illegal endeavor doomed to starve in her first decade, you know.
-
You took what i said and threw it out because it doesn't agree with your worldview but it's been shown time and time again secessionist movements fail due to lack of international recognition and foreign aid. Look at the Kurds in the middle east and Catalonia in Spain for modern examples.
-
Sorry. But no america was never doomed to starve as you so claim. The union of the states made it so not one state would collapse as all the others were there to keep them going.
There wasn't even an America until the individual states *agreed* of their own accord to come together. And it damn near collapsed a dozen times because of the balancing act required to get each sovereign state to sit at the table, much less actually dedicate to anything.
You think a market like California or Texas can be ignored? Maybe. What about the Northwestern Coalition of Greater Idaho? Or even the People's Republic of New York and Outer Florida?
And again any secession from the US proper is doomed to fail no matter how many state coalitions you throw in in whatever combination. If the vast majority of states are still in the union then the succession will fail with or without military interference.
And you actually believe that markets bigger than most nations while also having Ocean access and even being comprised of a dozen states wouldn't be able to sustain themselves?
Sounds to me that you just want to believe what you're saying, but Texans ain't the Kurds, and the PNW ain't Catalonia. Just like a piece of paper has no real authority.
What have I done…