Right.

That was bad.

Which is which in this analogy?

Okay, I'm just not taking you seriously anymore. We "all know" something that a cursory study of the subject proves wrong? Lol.

Which one was brutally subjugated? Lol, never mind, whatever dude.

How so?

Just checking. Both were run by their wartime victors. One just happened to be more brutal than the other. The north was not really decimated like the south was. Sherman march thing.

By reading the articles of secession, that's how we know.

But the point was really this... is our Libertarians and/or neo-confederates just as hippy-happy about mainland china seceding from the Republic of China as they are about the CSA's attempt to secede?

Or here in another one, how about William Walker's Republic of Lower California/Republic of Sonora?

So here we have another pro-slavery attempt at secession, just prior to the US Civil war, and right here in North America.

Are our libertarians and/or neo-confederates just as hippy-happy at the Republic of Lower California's attempt to secede as they are with the CSA's attempt to secede?

That would certainly indicate the position of some leaders, even the majority. Your statement implied that all leaders held that position though, which makes it flat out wrong.


The libertarians certainly are. I wouldn't know about neo-confederates, because there aren't any around here, and implying that there are like this should be a bannable offense. Perhaps I should start equating holocaust denial with liberal positions?

So IYO libertarians believe it was a good thing that mainland China went communist, and it was a good thing simply because it created more defacto nation-states?

How about Walker's Republic of Lower California... I assume they would have been on Walker's side, and condemned Santa Anna as a monster and tyrant, exactly like they condemn Lincoln. Correct?

If liberals were constantly going around telling people how the casualty numbers for Dachau are overstated by the biased academic consensus and how the bankers really did cause Germany to lose WWI, people would probably throw the term holocaust denier around pretty freely about them.

The declarations of secession didn't but I believe the CSA constitution does make direct statements about tariffs and trade laws that can be enacted by their newly created federal government.

Just like someone who supports the KKK's right to freedom of speech must obviously support what they say. Supporting someone's right to secession isn't supporting how they use it.

Dunno anything about that and don't care. People have the right to secession. It's as important as free speech and all the rest. That's all.

If you are implying that most southern citizens were wage-slaves, sharecroppers, or just generally poor, then yes.

If you are implying that most southerners were African slaves, then you are wrong. By a lot.

How much punishment does one deserve for "supporting" slavery indirectly? For instance, how much punishment is due to the North itself, for buying the products produced by slaves. The English, for being one of, if not the biggest importer of slave-picked cotton? How much punishment for anyone that bought anything manufactured on the backs of the slaves? Anybody who wore clothing?

What did the conscripts into the Nazi army deserve for their share of blame in the holocaust?

See my earlier reply about blame. And, are you implying that anyone who is currently in the military supports the war/s that are going on now? Or, let's go even more indirect than that: What share of blame for global warming does each person who buys gasoline deserve? Each person who uses their computer/dishwasher/stove etc?

when an army shows up in town and literally slashes/burns/destroys/kills everything in it's path, it's not ok to resist? if the local swat team started burning down peoples houses and destroying their businesses, raping, killing, and making prisoners of the local civilians, you would be ok with it because they wear badges? because they work for the government?

see the above reply. in a lot of instances, they were literally fighting to save their homeland.

by this logic, why did the northern troops fight side-by-side with troops from the south in the war of 1812? in the revolution?

you are trying to make all of these issues far too black/white, without looking at any of the gray areas.

The taxes they can enact? I thought we were talking about the taxes the union created?

Hey, I was the one who first asked this question.

I don't understand this comparison. Germany was a country. If some militia in Montana told me there was a draft going down I'd tell them to piss off, unless I was willing to fight for their cause.


We have a military for a country to provide defense. They on the other hand created an army to secede to preserve slavery. So like even though these are totally different circumstances, sure some don't support the war(s) and I've already said not all soldiers in the confederate army supported slavery but i'm pretty sure most did.

If the local national guard was here holding down a violent uprising from some militia group I'm not joining in the fight unless I support the militia....

Where in the Constitution do you find this right of secession?

From Volokh Conspiracy

The South obviously wanted to secede because of slavery, but can their immoral motivations be used as proof evidence that nullification and secession are illegal? I don't think slavery has anything to do with the legality or propriety of secession.

There's no Constitutional right to secession.

Our rights are inherent, they don't come from government.

Jefferson and Madison both supported nullification in the VA and KY resolutions. (Even though Madison later backtracked on it when the South started echoing it over slavery and said he didn't really mean it)

There is no such thing as an inherent right. Rights only exist when they are granted by other people.

There is no Constitutional right to anything. The Constitution was never intended to grant rights. Its purpose was to set up a federal government and then protect the people from having their rights violated by that government. The Bill of Rights was entirely a tack on because some people said, "zomg, we need a bill of rights!!!" The document was complete without that. All of those rights exist with or without the Constitution, as do many, many others. The 9th and 10th amendments exist for that exact reason, but they are routinely ignored.

The right to succession is the right to democracy. It is the right for people to decide and choose for themselves what sort of government and governors they would like to have and to not have those decisions undemocratically imposed on them by others.

I respect that you believe this, but I disagree. We have different ideas of what a "right" is. Also, the people who wrote the Constitution did not believe what you believe, and the Constitution must be interpreted based on their beliefs in what they were writing, not yours.

sick bump