All I've stated is that no government has the moral authority to hold a group of people under its sway who do not want to be governed by that government.
They have practical authority to do so. In order for the authority of the government to have any sway, it must hold sovereignty over the whole country. If it does not, it is little better than a loose confederation of states where each state can simply ignore the government by withdrawing.
Again, ethnic and regional self-determination is hardly a new concept in international law, and if you reject that you're basically arguing for anyone to have carte blanche over the largest area that they can effectively conquer and administrate. You're arguing for Chechnya, for Gaza, for a captive Tibet, for a greater Serbia, etc.
Using an absurd slippery slope argument about one guy in his house wanting to secede (even though it seemed to work for this guy) doesn't change that.
Why are you willfully ignoring the various groups in America that are very capable of succeeding and then oppressing everyone on their new country's grounds?
"Well guys, it's like Jonestown 2 in there but, gosh darn it, they're their own sovereign nation and who are we to stop them? That'd be down right immoral."
Again, ethnic and regional self-determination is hardly a new concept in international law, and if you reject that you're basically arguing for anyone to have carte blanche over the largest area that they can effectively conquer and administrate. You're arguing for Chechnya, for Gaza, for a captive Tibet, for a greater Serbia, etc.
That is how it works in reality. Self-determination has meant little in real life with any secession group that has succeeded only being able to do so thanks to the backing of another country or a war.
And the excuse that every country (and the UN) who has ever backed a secessionist group or engaged in a war to help such a group secede is?
All I've stated is that no government has the moral authority to hold a group of people under its sway who do not want to be governed by that government.
They have practical authority to do so. In order for the authority of the government to have any sway, it must hold sovereignty over the whole country. If it does not, it is little better than a loose confederation of states where each state can simply ignore the government by withdrawing.
Again, ethnic and regional self-determination is hardly a new concept in international law, and if you reject that you're basically arguing for anyone to have carte blanche over the largest area that they can effectively conquer and administrate. You're arguing for Chechnya
This was an invasion, not a restriction from secession.
for Gaza
Uhhh... no. Israel appears quite willing to let Gaza separate.
for a captive Tibet, for a greater Serbia, etc.
These two examples are objectionable because they involve genocide and human rights violations, not because they involve restriction from secession.
All I've stated is that no government has the moral authority to hold a group of people under its sway who do not want to be governed by that government.
They have practical authority to do so. In order for the authority of the government to have any sway, it must hold sovereignty over the whole country. If it does not, it is little better than a loose confederation of states where each state can simply ignore the government by withdrawing.
Again, ethnic and regional self-determination is hardly a new concept in international law, and if you reject that you're basically arguing for anyone to have carte blanche over the largest area that they can effectively conquer and administrate. You're arguing for Chechnya, for Gaza, for a captive Tibet, for a greater Serbia, etc.
Using an absurd slippery slope argument about one guy in his house wanting to secede (even though it seemed to work for this guy) doesn't change that.
The South was not conquered. And under your argument, vapid as it is, there was no popular plebiscite and if there had been a large portion of the population would have been disenfranchised which invalidates the plebiscite.
"Regional self-determination" is not recognized in international law, then or now, nor is it required by the political philosophy underlying democracy. "The South" is no less arbitrary, and indeed a great deal more arbitrary, than "The United States" even before we get into the continued existence of the United States at the time of attempted secession.
Its not a slippery slope because you provide no stopping case. If the South can secede, can only Alabama? If Alabama can, could Orange County? If Orange County could, could Chicago? If Chicago could, could Brooklyn? If Brooklyn could, could Flatbush? An apartment complex in Flatbush? A single homeless dude?
Again, ethnic and regional self-determination is hardly a new concept in international law, and if you reject that you're basically arguing for anyone to have carte blanche over the largest area that they can effectively conquer and administrate. You're arguing for Chechnya, for Gaza, for a captive Tibet, for a greater Serbia, etc.
That is how it works in reality. Self-determination has meant little in real life with any secession group that has succeeded only being able to do so thanks to the backing of another country or a war.
And the excuse that every country (and the UN) who has ever backed a secessionist group or engaged in a war to help such a group secede is?
*ding*
It is usually genocide or ethnic cleansing. Lesser forms of oppression usually aren't complained about much. For example, the Muslim groups in parts of China that want to secede. Same with India.
By the way am I the only one that thinks that if the south had stayed in the Union, the end of slavery would have resembled Brazil's abolition movement? The south could have influenced the Federal goverment to essentialy pay for the freedom of the slaves.
Uh. What? Slavery was abolished in Brazil because A.) Their royal masters were putting massive pressure on them to stop and B.) It wasn't profitable any more.
Go look it up yourself and learn something about political theory and the very underpinnings of modern political thought you ignorant fucks.
Yes and nothing in that suggests that any group is entitled to secede.
edit
From The Second Treatise of Civil Government - a subset can't leave society nor can power revert to individuals.
Sec. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people: for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law; there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people, (who, at first, lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies no where but to heaven; force between either persons, who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that appeal, and put himself upon it.
Sec. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.
Go look it up yourself and learn something about political theory and the very underpinnings of modern political thought you ignorant fucks.
Yes and nothing in that suggests that any group is entitled to secede.
edit
From The Second Treatise of Civil Government - a subset can't leave society nor can power revert to individuals.
Sec. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people: for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law; there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people, (who, at first, lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies no where but to heaven; force between either persons, who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that appeal, and put himself upon it.
Sec. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.
It is interesting how just moving the bold function points out that in fact, that is talking about the option to secede or withdraw from a governmental body: The first section is advocating the use of war in the event that a ruler ignores the body of the people's judgement. The second provides for both term limits and replacement or disposition of government due to the misuse of power.
Obviously, it is up to each individual to judge whether any action of the government rises to such a level. Once a sizable level of the populace makes that determination, "war were declared."
Go look it up yourself and learn something about political theory and the very underpinnings of modern political thought you ignorant fucks.
Yes and nothing in that suggests that any group is entitled to secede.
edit
From The Second Treatise of Civil Government - a subset can't leave society nor can power revert to individuals.
Sec. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people: for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law; there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people, (who, at first, lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies no where but to heaven; force between either persons, who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that appeal, and put himself upon it.
Sec. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.
It is interesting how just moving the bold function points out that in fact, that is talking about the option to secede or withdraw from a governmental body: The first section is advocating the use of war in the event that a ruler ignores the body of the people's judgement. The second provides for both term limits and replacement or disposition of government due to the misuse of power.
Obviously, it is up to each individual to judge whether any action of the government rises to such a level. Once a sizable level of the populace makes that determination, "war were declared."
No actually you're just not reading correctly. It explicitly says power can never revert to the individual, and that a claimed injustice on a part of the people can not allow division without the consent of all the people. When there is some injustice on the part of the government to some of the people the body of all the people is the only judge. None of what you have highlighted indicates that a society can divide itself on its own consent and without the division of society, a government can not be split.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Hint: The Confederacy did not have the cause necessary as per the Declaration of Independence, which I prefer to think as authoritative on this matter, and so had no right to secede from the Union.
Then again in reality, the only time when a seceding body is DEEMED right to separate from it's government is usually when they've already won that right and got to put it down in the history books.
But most importantly the whole slave issue just highlighted the fact that the Confederates were hypocritical cocks and their cries of injustice fell on deaf ears internationally for the most part.
It'd be pretty easy to make this argument on the other side.
Let's say you are Abraham Lincoln, and the year is 1861. Seven of your former states now claim to be their own country; they have seized federal property and then attacked one of your forts.
What argument do you have that going to war with these states is wrong or hypocritical?
Civil War history is by no means my specialty, but I mean Lincoln claimed for a long time that it wasn't a war against Slavery, even when it pretty clearly was. He wanted to contain it, in hopes that it would ultimately die out because Southern farmers wanted to expand westward because they were starting to exhaust the land they were on.
Furthermore, even in the Union slavery was still present and active during and after the war. The EP only freed slaves in the south.
Many Union officers either owned slaves themselves, or weren't abolitionists, including Sherman who decided he was going to fight civilians instead of armies.
Also, pretty cool. A guy in one of my classes right now is a direct descendant of General Sherman. A friend of mine's emphasis is Civil War history, and during a little meet and greet thing for our class the guy randomly asked my friend what he thought of Sherman. (after learning what my friend's emphasis was) My friend goes on this big rant, and then the guy introduces himself as So-and-so Sherman.
ShimSham on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Civil War history is by no means my specialty, but I mean Lincoln claimed for a long time that it wasn't a war against Slavery, even when it pretty clearly was. He wanted to contain it, in hopes that it would ultimately die out because Southern farmers wanted to expand westward because they were starting to exhaust the land they were on.
Furthermore, even in the Union slavery was still present and active during and after the war. The EP only freed slaves in the south.
Many Union officers either owned slaves themselves, or weren't abolitionists, including Sherman who decided he was going to fight civilians instead of armies.
Also, pretty cool. A guy in one of my classes right now is a direct descendant of General Sherman.
We've been through these points and have pretty clearly come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Sherman attacked civilians during his march, in fact he even ensured their safety before his alleged 'evil' deeds which probably helped win the war faster.
Also the slave states in the Union were not part of the EP and were allowed to stay with the Union because those states had minor slave populations and the benefit in not having to fight them as well outweighed the risk in freeing slaves there as well and possibly losing the war.
Basically read every PantsB post in this thread (use the search function) and come back either with convincing evidence against his points or move on to whatever other points of contention you have.
Go look it up yourself and learn something about political theory and the very underpinnings of modern political thought you ignorant fucks.
Yes and nothing in that suggests that any group is entitled to secede.
edit
From The Second Treatise of Civil Government - a subset can't leave society nor can power revert to individuals.
Sec. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people: for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law; there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people, (who, at first, lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies no where but to heaven; force between either persons, who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that appeal, and put himself upon it.
Sec. 243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community, no common-wealth, which is contrary to the original agreement: so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.
It is interesting how just moving the bold function points out that in fact, that is talking about the option to secede or withdraw from a governmental body: The first section is advocating the use of war in the event that a ruler ignores the body of the people's judgement. The second provides for both term limits and replacement or disposition of government due to the misuse of power.
Obviously, it is up to each individual to judge whether any action of the government rises to such a level. Once a sizable level of the populace makes that determination, "war were declared."
No actually you're just not reading correctly. It explicitly says power can never revert to the individual, and that a claimed injustice on a part of the people can not allow division without the consent of all the people. When there is some injustice on the part of the government to some of the people the body of all the people is the only judge. None of what you have highlighted indicates that a society can divide itself on its own consent and without the division of society, a government can not be split.
"can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts" Two parts to that statement. Power can revert to individuals if the society breaks down, be it because of war, natural disaster, or mutual agreement.
You seem to assume that a voting block could not be formed that could actually dissolve the established society, but I see nothing in either statement that would limit a majority of the people from collectively choosing to do so. Once done, with society dissolved, power reverts again to the individual until he so chooses to place his power into a new form of society.
Alternately, society lasts only as long as individuals do continue to place their power within society. And so, an individual cannot, once placed, remove their power alone, but individuals that have not placed their power with society are free to work against it, and dissolve it from the outside, and individuals within society may conspire to as a group, or society within the society, remove their power. Neither is prohibited by the above statements.
"can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts" Two parts to that statement. Power can revert to individuals if the society breaks down, be it because of war, natural disaster, or mutual agreement.
You seem to assume that a voting block could not be formed that could actually dissolve the established society, but I see nothing in either statement that would limit a majority of the people from collectively choosing to do so. Once done, with society dissolved, power reverts again to the individual until he so chooses to place his power into a new form of society.
Alternately, society lasts only as long as individuals do continue to place their power within society. And so, an individual cannot, once placed, remove their power alone, but individuals that have not placed their power with society are free to work against it, and dissolve it from the outside, and individuals within society may conspire to as a group, or society within the society, remove their power. Neither is prohibited by the above statements.
It can be argued yes that a vote amongst all the people can divide "society" but even that is questionable and not applicable to the Confederacy.
Same book and chapter, remember that to Locke "legislative" is effectively synonymous with "elected government"
Sec. 227. In both the fore-mentioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion: for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away this decisive power, which no body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and no body else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority: and thus, by removing the legislative established by the society, (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they untie the knot, and expose the people a-new to the state of war, And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.
By assembling a government while the previous government still existed (through the Constitution) the South created a state of war within society. Even if one granted the idea that the US government was oppressive, this did not empower a subset of society from breaking off as they were represented in the government of that society.
As to what constitutes consent, Locke also addresses this earlier in his work
Sec. 119. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.
Sec. 120. To understand this the better, it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexed also, and submits to the community, those possessions, which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government: for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property; and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government, to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same act therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to any common-wealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both of them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that common-wealth, as long as it hath a being. VVhoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherways, enjoys any part of the land, so annexed to, and under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any subject of it.
In other words you - or in this case the South - are subject to a government while directly enjoying the fruits of the government.
The South was subject. Government did not break down and they tried to raise a government without Northern consent, usurping the power of the US.
The people of the United States ratified the constiution. The fact that they did it state by state did not make the constitution some kind of federation of states. It was a separate level of government created by the whole people.
If the Southern states wanted to leave therefore, they should have sought to amend the constitution to create a legal procedure for leaving.
"can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts" Two parts to that statement. Power can revert to individuals if the society breaks down, be it because of war, natural disaster, or mutual agreement.
You seem to assume that a voting block could not be formed that could actually dissolve the established society, but I see nothing in either statement that would limit a majority of the people from collectively choosing to do so. Once done, with society dissolved, power reverts again to the individual until he so chooses to place his power into a new form of society.
Alternately, society lasts only as long as individuals do continue to place their power within society. And so, an individual cannot, once placed, remove their power alone, but individuals that have not placed their power with society are free to work against it, and dissolve it from the outside, and individuals within society may conspire to as a group, or society within the society, remove their power. Neither is prohibited by the above statements.
It can be argued yes that a vote amongst all the people can divide "society" but even that is questionable and not applicable to the Confederacy.
Same book and chapter, remember that to Locke "legislative" is effectively synonymous with "elected government"
Sec. 227. In both the fore-mentioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion: for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away this decisive power, which no body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and no body else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority: and thus, by removing the legislative established by the society, (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they untie the knot, and expose the people a-new to the state of war, And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.
By assembling a government while the previous government still existed (through the Constitution) the South created a state of war within society. Even if one granted the idea that the US government was oppressive, this did not empower a subset of society from breaking off as they were represented in the government of that society.
As to what constitutes consent, Locke also addresses this earlier in his work
Sec. 119. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.
Sec. 120. To understand this the better, it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexed also, and submits to the community, those possessions, which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government: for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property; and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government, to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same act therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to any common-wealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both of them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that common-wealth, as long as it hath a being. VVhoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherways, enjoys any part of the land, so annexed to, and under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any subject of it.
In other words you - or in this case the South - are subject to a government while directly enjoying the fruits of the government.
The South was subject. Government did not break down and they tried to raise a government without Northern consent, usurping the power of the US.
Agreed, in this respect. I was never actually arguing the confederate side, merely that it was possible for A succession to legitimately take place. Just not that one.
Though I'd point out that due to the inane Dred Scott ruling, one could point to justification by the confederacy that the existing legislature was in fact attempting to subvert the underlying rules of law, and since the "slave states" were outnumbered in representation, their only option was to go to war, treating the existing legislature as the rebels. But that is because they were dumb, and the chief justice was also dumb.
1. Who says any of us are fans of the Southern Baptist Convention?
2. The Confederate flag stands for nothing else.
Ok you seriously don't even know what you're talking about. Don't come into forums acting like you're knowledgeable, because you're not. If you read up on ANY history of the Confederate flag, you'd realize it was made for a much different reason, and stood for something completely different than slavery.
Now before you read on, I'm not debating if the Confederacy was right or just or whatever you want to fucking call it, I'm simply explaining the ignorance involving the flag.
People just see the flag and assume, "omg slavery and racism and stuff". Sure the South at the time had a lot of both of those, but the flag was created to represent the bond between the colonies. The flag was most used during battles and out front of homes in the south.
Now I will agree, the flag and symbol does bring up a lot of resentment and feelings of regret from the past, but don't spit in the face of history just because you WANT the flag to represent slavery, cause it wasn't created for that purpose. The whole point of history is to learn from our mistakes, not make up personal opinions on the matter.
Take the swastika for instance, it was first created in the stone age and used widely by Zen Buddhists to represent "well-being" and "good luck", to prosper. Now look at what it's seen as due to the ACTIONS of the nazis. These symbols are made for one thing, yet used later in time for another.
1. Who says any of us are fans of the Southern Baptist Convention?
2. The Confederate flag stands for nothing else.
Ok you seriously don't even know what you're talking about. Don't come into forums acting like you're knowledgeable, because you're not. If you read up on ANY history of the Confederate flag, you'd realize it was made for a much different reason, and stood for something completely different than slavery.
People just see the flag and assume, "omg slavery and racism and stuff". Sure the South at the time had a lot of both of those, but the flag was created to represent the bond between the colonies. The flag was most used during battles and out front of homes in the south.
Now I will agree, the flag and symbol does bring up a lot of resentment and feelings of regret from the past, but don't spit in the face of history just because you WANT the flag to represent slavery, cause it wasn't created for that purpose. The whole point of history is to learn from our mistakes, not make up personal opinions on the matter.
Take the swastika for instance, it was first created in the stone age and used widely by Zen Buddhist to represent "well-being" and "good luck", to prosper. Now look at what it's seen as due to the ACTIONS of the nazis. These symbols are made for one thing, yet used later in time for another.
Ok you seriously don't even know what you're talking about. Don't come into forums acting like you're knowledgeable, because you're not. If you read up on ANY history of the Confederate flag, you'd realize it was made for a much different reason, and stood for something completely different than slavery.
It was created to represent a nation during war. Said nation was associated with slavery because the main point that they broke up over was slavery. If they had broken with the USA over tariffs, it would stand for idiotic tax protesters.
Couscous on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
The argument regarding "Battle Flag vs. First National Flag" is just beyond inane. Either you're talking about a flag designed to represent the South and its "peculiar institution" or you're talking about a flag designed to represent the armies who defended the South and its "peculiar institution." (and who were often called upon to arrest escaped slaves, if I'm not mistaken)
Basically you're trying to make a distinction between the men who held the chains and the men who held the guns in defense of them. It's a bankrupt exercise.
The argument regarding "Battle Flag vs. First National Flag" is just beyond inane. Either you're talking about a flag designed to represent the South and its "peculiar institution" or you're talking about a flag designed to represent the armies who defended the South and its "peculiar institution." (and who were often called upon to arrest escaped slaves, if I'm not mistaken)
Basically you're trying to make a distinction between the men who held the chains and the men who held the guns in defense of them. It's a bankrupt exercise.
This.
I was just stating the actual history of the Confederate Rebel flag, tis all.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm just talking about this flag specifically:
Because that's the one that's flown today to represent the Confederacy.
I'll ask again, where else was this flag used? What other country or culture used this specific flag or symbol? What other connotations or contexts does this flag have?
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm just talking about this flag specifically:
Because that's the one that's flown today to represent the Confederacy.
I'll ask again, where else was this flag used? What other country or culture used this specific flag or symbol? What other connotations or contexts does this flag have?
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
I love how every 5 pages or so people come into this thread as if it was not 45+ pages long full of bluster and confidence that there's no way we're explored the possibility, BS as it might be, that the Confederate flag means someone else to some people.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm just talking about this flag specifically:
Because that's the one that's flown today to represent the Confederacy.
I'll ask again, where else was this flag used? What other country or culture used this specific flag or symbol? What other connotations or contexts does this flag have?
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
Did you miss, like, the entire fucking thread?
This flag represents one thing: a country that existed purely to continue the practice of slavery. It's not just actions associated with the flag, it's not some ubiquitous symbol that's seen use in many cultures, it has a very specific context and a very specific meaning. There is only one thing it's associated with, and flying it today to honor what it represented is reprehensible.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm just talking about this flag specifically:
Because that's the one that's flown today to represent the Confederacy.
I'll ask again, where else was this flag used? What other country or culture used this specific flag or symbol? What other connotations or contexts does this flag have?
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
And you missed the point that the Confederate Flag's history and creation was about slavery, preserving slavery, and to a great extent symbolizing and representing slavery. But you don't really care, do you? I mean, there are only 24 pages, right? Not like we could've had any meaningful dialogue.
A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation.
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
You missed my point completely. A flag or symbol representing something because of the actions of the people using it, isn't the same as it's history and meaning of creation. I'm now done.
Sure the South at the time had a lot of both of those, but the flag was created to represent the bond between the colonies. The flag was most used during battles and out front of homes in the south.
What was it that those colonies had in common? What was it that could have bonded them so strongly together as to fight a war against fellow countrymen? Damnit, I can't remember! Hmmmm... Seemed like it was something important. Can you remember what it was?
Posts
"Well guys, it's like Jonestown 2 in there but, gosh darn it, they're their own sovereign nation and who are we to stop them? That'd be down right immoral."
And the excuse that every country (and the UN) who has ever backed a secessionist group or engaged in a war to help such a group secede is?
*ding*
This was an invasion, not a restriction from secession.
Uhhh... no. Israel appears quite willing to let Gaza separate.
These two examples are objectionable because they involve genocide and human rights violations, not because they involve restriction from secession.
The South was not conquered. And under your argument, vapid as it is, there was no popular plebiscite and if there had been a large portion of the population would have been disenfranchised which invalidates the plebiscite.
"Regional self-determination" is not recognized in international law, then or now, nor is it required by the political philosophy underlying democracy. "The South" is no less arbitrary, and indeed a great deal more arbitrary, than "The United States" even before we get into the continued existence of the United States at the time of attempted secession.
Its not a slippery slope because you provide no stopping case. If the South can secede, can only Alabama? If Alabama can, could Orange County? If Orange County could, could Chicago? If Chicago could, could Brooklyn? If Brooklyn could, could Flatbush? An apartment complex in Flatbush? A single homeless dude?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And the reason that the UN and every other country doesn't back every other secessionist group?
But please, enlighten us. Link us to the rule in international law. Or the political treatise that you're basing your argument on
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Uh. What? Slavery was abolished in Brazil because A.) Their royal masters were putting massive pressure on them to stop and B.) It wasn't profitable any more.
Are you seriously asking me to provide links to precedent supporting ethnic or political self-determination?
Because obviously no one has ever fucking though of this before. Not at all. It's clearly something I just made up. It's not like people have been having this discussion since John Locke or anything.
Go look it up yourself and learn something about political theory and the very underpinnings of modern political thought you ignorant fucks.
We do this all the time with cults that would secede if they were able to. Why are you opposed to that?
Yes and nothing in that suggests that any group is entitled to secede.
edit
From The Second Treatise of Civil Government - a subset can't leave society nor can power revert to individuals.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It is interesting how just moving the bold function points out that in fact, that is talking about the option to secede or withdraw from a governmental body: The first section is advocating the use of war in the event that a ruler ignores the body of the people's judgement. The second provides for both term limits and replacement or disposition of government due to the misuse of power.
Obviously, it is up to each individual to judge whether any action of the government rises to such a level. Once a sizable level of the populace makes that determination, "war were declared."
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
During the Civil War, a lot of confederate deserters fled to Jones and a few other surrounding counties and formed The Free State of Jones.
I think the best book on this was called The Free State of Jones, by something Bynum. Not really a very good book, but a pretty interesting story.
No actually you're just not reading correctly. It explicitly says power can never revert to the individual, and that a claimed injustice on a part of the people can not allow division without the consent of all the people. When there is some injustice on the part of the government to some of the people the body of all the people is the only judge. None of what you have highlighted indicates that a society can divide itself on its own consent and without the division of society, a government can not be split.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hint: The Confederacy did not have the cause necessary as per the Declaration of Independence, which I prefer to think as authoritative on this matter, and so had no right to secede from the Union.
Then again in reality, the only time when a seceding body is DEEMED right to separate from it's government is usually when they've already won that right and got to put it down in the history books.
But most importantly the whole slave issue just highlighted the fact that the Confederates were hypocritical cocks and their cries of injustice fell on deaf ears internationally for the most part.
So, you know, fuck THAT.
Let's say you are Abraham Lincoln, and the year is 1861. Seven of your former states now claim to be their own country; they have seized federal property and then attacked one of your forts.
What argument do you have that going to war with these states is wrong or hypocritical?
Of course they were, but really in the balance of who were the bigger cocks it's pretty obviously the South.
Furthermore, even in the Union slavery was still present and active during and after the war. The EP only freed slaves in the south.
Many Union officers either owned slaves themselves, or weren't abolitionists, including Sherman who decided he was going to fight civilians instead of armies.
Also, pretty cool. A guy in one of my classes right now is a direct descendant of General Sherman. A friend of mine's emphasis is Civil War history, and during a little meet and greet thing for our class the guy randomly asked my friend what he thought of Sherman. (after learning what my friend's emphasis was) My friend goes on this big rant, and then the guy introduces himself as So-and-so Sherman.
We've been through these points and have pretty clearly come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Sherman attacked civilians during his march, in fact he even ensured their safety before his alleged 'evil' deeds which probably helped win the war faster.
Also the slave states in the Union were not part of the EP and were allowed to stay with the Union because those states had minor slave populations and the benefit in not having to fight them as well outweighed the risk in freeing slaves there as well and possibly losing the war.
Basically read every PantsB post in this thread (use the search function) and come back either with convincing evidence against his points or move on to whatever other points of contention you have.
I don't care enough about the subject to argue it.
"can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts" Two parts to that statement. Power can revert to individuals if the society breaks down, be it because of war, natural disaster, or mutual agreement.
You seem to assume that a voting block could not be formed that could actually dissolve the established society, but I see nothing in either statement that would limit a majority of the people from collectively choosing to do so. Once done, with society dissolved, power reverts again to the individual until he so chooses to place his power into a new form of society.
Alternately, society lasts only as long as individuals do continue to place their power within society. And so, an individual cannot, once placed, remove their power alone, but individuals that have not placed their power with society are free to work against it, and dissolve it from the outside, and individuals within society may conspire to as a group, or society within the society, remove their power. Neither is prohibited by the above statements.
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
It can be argued yes that a vote amongst all the people can divide "society" but even that is questionable and not applicable to the Confederacy.
Same book and chapter, remember that to Locke "legislative" is effectively synonymous with "elected government"
By assembling a government while the previous government still existed (through the Constitution) the South created a state of war within society. Even if one granted the idea that the US government was oppressive, this did not empower a subset of society from breaking off as they were represented in the government of that society.
As to what constitutes consent, Locke also addresses this earlier in his work
In other words you - or in this case the South - are subject to a government while directly enjoying the fruits of the government.
The South was subject. Government did not break down and they tried to raise a government without Northern consent, usurping the power of the US.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If the Southern states wanted to leave therefore, they should have sought to amend the constitution to create a legal procedure for leaving.
Agreed, in this respect. I was never actually arguing the confederate side, merely that it was possible for A succession to legitimately take place. Just not that one.
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
...good to talk to you I guess?
Now before you read on, I'm not debating if the Confederacy was right or just or whatever you want to fucking call it, I'm simply explaining the ignorance involving the flag.
People just see the flag and assume, "omg slavery and racism and stuff". Sure the South at the time had a lot of both of those, but the flag was created to represent the bond between the colonies. The flag was most used during battles and out front of homes in the south.
Now I will agree, the flag and symbol does bring up a lot of resentment and feelings of regret from the past, but don't spit in the face of history just because you WANT the flag to represent slavery, cause it wasn't created for that purpose. The whole point of history is to learn from our mistakes, not make up personal opinions on the matter.
Take the swastika for instance, it was first created in the stone age and used widely by Zen Buddhists to represent "well-being" and "good luck", to prosper. Now look at what it's seen as due to the ACTIONS of the nazis. These symbols are made for one thing, yet used later in time for another.
So.
Where'd the Confederate battle standard start?
Basically you're trying to make a distinction between the men who held the chains and the men who held the guns in defense of them. It's a bankrupt exercise.
I was just stating the actual history of the Confederate Rebel flag, tis all.
Because that's the one that's flown today to represent the Confederacy.
I'll ask again, where else was this flag used? What other country or culture used this specific flag or symbol? What other connotations or contexts does this flag have?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Did you miss, like, the entire fucking thread?
This flag represents one thing: a country that existed purely to continue the practice of slavery. It's not just actions associated with the flag, it's not some ubiquitous symbol that's seen use in many cultures, it has a very specific context and a very specific meaning. There is only one thing it's associated with, and flying it today to honor what it represented is reprehensible.
What was it that those colonies had in common? What was it that could have bonded them so strongly together as to fight a war against fellow countrymen? Damnit, I can't remember! Hmmmm... Seemed like it was something important. Can you remember what it was?