Well this thread sure got boring.

Every time this thread pops up I'm happy that it wasn't one of the ones that I posted heavily in.

Dude everyone knows about the Articles of Confederation.

1) Where did you learn about it? Let me rephrase: which one of Lew Rockwell's websites told you that nobody gets taught about it?

2) Yeah how did those articles of Confederation turn out? Was it, perhaps, replaced by a much more centralized system after like a decade?

Well, we know he didn't learn about the AoC from reading the Wikipedia article he quoted.

Epic slanking ITT

The federal government's guarantee that states will have a republican form of government is not really consistent with a right of secession.

It's almost like the Constitution was a compromise of sorts.

I'll get back to you on that.

lol at using Articles of Confederation to bolster an argument about anything except how poorly the Articles of Confederation worked for producing an effective government.

Which "framers" were those exactly? Certainly not the federalists who explicitly repudiated the Articles to produce a stronger, more stable government. lol u @ using the term "framers." Framers of what?

If States can secede based on policies they don't like, does any law passed by the federal government actually have any force? What is the difference between nullification and secession in such a case?

This thread is pretty awesome

AoC were a pretty fantastic failure. Nothing in the Constitution really says the Union is perpetual, but, Article 1 sec 10 pretty explicitly outlaws what the Confederacy did when they seceded.

It really sucks because I'm taking a history class on 1776-1877 and our final essay prompt is "did the South have the right to secede?" and the class is clearly being taught that yes, they did.

You can cite the Declaration and Locke all you want, but neither of those are legal documents.

Well, was "right" meant in a philosophical or legal sense? I think succession could be morally right, as say the north succeeding from the south, or booting the out of the govt (is that a right?).

Anyway, I doubt Locke ever mentioned succession and not sure how he felt about rebellion. The DOI does support something of a justice based right to "divorce" oppressive regimes that unfairly exploit a group/subgroup/charity minority.

I mainly think worrying too much about the borderline uninteresting question of succession just plays into the hands of neoconfederate types. Ignore the issue and hope they move on.

Wait, are we arguing that states a right to secede NOW? I thought we were talking about the Civil War.

anyway it doesn't matter what the hell kind of rights we have in a philosophical sense, because the USC is the law of the land and ultimately the only law that matters. hate it or love it, that's the way it is.

if you wanna argue that we have a moral right to secede, well, that's fine, but since it will never ever happen it's kind of a dumb exercise.

also wrt Locke, from my understanding he always stated that the social contract was a voluntary one and it's the right of an individual to nullify the contract if his natural rights are not being protected. or something like that. that kind of implies overthrowing your government if it doesn't meet your "needs."

Obviously Locke's contract is kind of outdated since it relies on God.

An article last year in Diplomatic History goes the heart of whether the founders considered secession constitutionally legitimate.

It argues that foreign and domestic military threats were the trump considerations behind the constitution. Political discourse then was full of fear of "a Monster with thirteen heads." The states were not only likely to pull apart, but go to war. They were endlessly quarreling over trade, claims over western lands, minatory pacts against each other with Indians or other states. "The founders were acutely aware of these problems and repeatedly speculated that disunion and internal conflict was imminent." And as states sought allies against each other it would provide openings for Britain/France/Spain/Indians to intervene.

So a primary purpose of the Constitution was to prevent the disunion that was supposedly included as a right of states. This means secessionists have a high burden of proof. Wisdom of the day was that divisions were an existential threat, so a right to leave the union would need to be explicitly permitted by the Constitution. We shouldn't be surprised there isn't one, since that would obviate the purpose of US 2.0.

Robbie J. Totten, "Security, Two Diplomacies, and the Formation of the U.S Constitution," Diplomatic History 30:1 January 2012.

Time to get out of that CC and take some real classes.

Maybe the uni isnt in the suburbs and they're scary people he refuses to be around.

I'm sorry, feel free to correct me besides throw around dumb insults. I'm here to learn.

If a state has seceded, article 1, section 10 doesn't apply. Are you saying they didn't actually secede before joining?

He's just saying that your class kinda seems like not a good learning experience if you're wasting time building towards Neo-Confederate garbage. It seems like you're on the right track though

This is like saying laws against punching someone in the face don't apply after you've already punched them.

Unless we're debating whether lincoln should have used force to maintain the union, which is wholly different.

Sometimes when we read something, we interpret it one way, but then if we read it closely, we see it means something a bit different. My post, the core of which was, "all things considered, I'd prefer to live in low crime areas" was basically wondering why Ikes, who seems really concerned about crime and minorities, would want to go to med school in the most crime ridden, minority having place the country?

The rest of my post, if cast in an unfavorable light, basically had the content of, "If I could go to a school in a place that's 10% black vs 50% black, given standard crime statistics, I'd prefer the 10% black place."

Now, this may seem shockingly racist, but it has the virtue of being true of every white person on this board, particularly those, like Ikes, who look at the TM/GZ affair and argue, implicitly or explicitly, "we'll damn, we know the black guy did something wrong--you gotta keep an eye on them (because they steal) and if they jump you it's ok to shoot them because that's a reasonable threat to your life." In fact, much of that thread is a debate between people who think different implications can or cannot be drawn given what is know about what transpired (e.g., "TM willingly laid in wait for GZ so he could attack him to teach him a lesson" vs "TM was probably trying to get back safely to the apt and may have been lost and felt the need to defend himself when he saw GZ was very near.")

I know this is complex, and I have better things to do than defend myself from the infirmities of your reading comprehension, and, unlike some posters who make 200+ post threads when they feel they have been called a racist, I'm actually not that concerned about whether you think I'm racist. However, it is annoying to read posts framed in a clever "gotcha" modality, that are neither clever nor gotcha.

Whatever you say there Mr. Dubblejaylawer...

Perhaps you should stick to discussions rather than lobbing insults. As your intellect seemed to take a nosedive after you pretty much admitted to profiling ethnic people in poor socioeconomic conditions, and seem to to be profiling jmakin for being in a CC, and profile others with your low-grade trollings.

And, mpethy, whether right or wrong, still clearly frames arguments way better than you itt.

I'm not sure it's a cheap shot, but it was certainly worded as one. The point is there was a small debate about the value of the cc education. For a generic goal, I see that debate something of a stalemate. You (plural, generic you) save a bundle on CC and it's even possible (though unlikely) to get a better education at a CC.

However, I think if one wants to go to grad or professional school, the extra loans/expense is probably worthwhile because of the inherent advantages of a four year college or university.

Now, my comment was a snarky remark because its framed against the account of your class, which seems to give lie to the value of CC. You've described content for a history class that would get most high school teachers fired or political candidates ridiculed, which seems a touch inconsistent with the "just as good" or "almost as good" hypotheses.

The reason I specially called out your Locke comment is because if you read the passages I quote regarding Locke, there is plenty of debate over what, if any role, God plays in Locke...and thus the history class must be really bad if you think Locke's critics mainly focus on the propriety of having god in his system, which that's not a focus of debate.

Edit: to be fair, that's more a subject for a political philosophy class than a history one, unless the teachers is saying something like, "This is a Christian nation." and cites to Locke.

Don't hate Paul D. You'll find I sometimes argue like a pretentious *******, but I rarely stupid arguments (or if I make "stupid" arguments they can typically be cashed out in some detail to make sense). You may even be able to learn a thing or two from my posts. Or, if not, I make like a funny troll post on occasion, so there's that.