No, but I do think they meant for any break to be mutual. It's like a marriage vs. cohabitation. Or at least, I think that's what it was for the Federalists. Ultimately, I think they gambled that such a situation wouldn't arise, because any mechanism for secession would be a debate that could have killed the Constitution in its infancy. Tennessee is the only state I think did things right, because they didn't claim the ethereal right of unilateral secession, but the very clear right of revolution. But the trick with right of revolution is that its an appeal to God as judge, hence why they said "Deo Vindice." But as it turned out, God vindicated the other side.
And half the reason I bring up Texas v. White is to trigger Southerners anyway. They get so antsy about it. Obviously it is simply recognizing the result of the war. War in itself is a kind of divine courtroom, as the Southerners recognized before they lost in it. That's why it's so important to treat war as a last resort, because it will permanently change the world once finished.
When I'm not messing with Southerners, I tend to be much more sympathetic, especially when its stupid stuff like all the bans on Southern flags and tearing down statues. It's like messing with my little brother.
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I'm of the opinion that the union should be something that can be left by the individual states in a democratic fashion. I believe that the manner in which the union was preserved actually destroyed the union in the context of its original founding.
Yeah, unfortunately "should be" and "is" aren't always the same. The Founding Fathers kind of dropped the ball by not providing a method of "divorce" for the states, but at the same time, I don't think the Confederacy would have survived as a nation even if it had won, mainly because it would have established that states could leave whenever for whatever reason. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a philosophical debate. On the one hand, having a unified government of republican English speakers created the only nation that could stop the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union in the next century. On the other hand, it's also creating the city-dominated cesspool of this century, which red states just have to deal with because the blue states parasitize them and will never let them leave even if they wanted to.
No, but I do think they meant for any break to be mutual. It's like a marriage vs. cohabitation. Or at least, I think that's what it was for the Federalists. Ultimately, I think they gambled that such a situation wouldn't arise, because any mechanism for secession would be a debate that could have killed the Constitution in its infancy. Tennessee is the only state I think did things right, because they didn't claim the ethereal right of unilateral secession, but the very clear right of revolution. But the trick with right of revolution is that its an appeal to God as judge, hence why they said "Deo Vindice." But as it turned out, God vindicated the other side.
And half the reason I bring up Texas v. White is to trigger Southerners anyway. They get so antsy about it. Obviously it is simply recognizing the result of the war. War in itself is a kind of divine courtroom, as the Southerners recognized before they lost in it. That's why it's so important to treat war as a last resort, because it will permanently change the world once finished.
When I'm not messing with Southerners, I tend to be much more sympathetic, especially when its stupid stuff like all the bans on Southern flags and tearing down statues. It's like messing with my little brother.
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I'm of the opinion that the union should be something that can be left by the individual states in a democratic fashion. I believe that the manner in which the union was preserved actually destroyed the union in the context of its original founding.
Yeah, unfortunately "should be" and "is" aren't always the same. The Founding Fathers kind of dropped the ball by not providing a method of "divorce" for the states, but at the same time, I don't think the Confederacy would have survived as a nation even if it had won, mainly because it would have established that states could leave whenever for whatever reason. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a philosophical debate. On the one hand, having a unified government of republican English speakers created the only nation that could stop the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union in the next century. On the other hand, it's also creating the city-dominated cesspool of this century, which red states just have to deal with because the blue states parasitize them and will never let them leave even if they wanted to.