[ceagstuntee]

America won its first revolution and lost the second. I believe in the adage, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." All revolutions, including all America's revolutions are rooted in the principle Jefferson expressed in the Declaration of Independence - consent of the governed.

Today, we are indoctrinated to accept majority rule but this is not the meaning of consent. It is the power to withdraw consent that makes for a failed marriage or even rape and alters a political relationship from equal partners voluntarily united to that of master and slave, ruler and subject. Another adage shown true is, "History is written by the victor's." To expose America's 2nd revolution for what is was, rather than the propaganda of the victor, I start with the question of consent.

Please tell me how come:
* the colonies of Britain can secede, becoming individual sovereign States;
* Texas can secede from Mexico, becoming a sovereign State;
* the individual sovereign States can secede from the Articles of Confederation, formed in "perpetual union;"
* the counties of western Virginia can secede from Virginia and accepted by the US as a sovereign State in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution;
* but South Carolina and the rest of the South cannot secede from the US not formed in "perpetual union?"

BTW, armed revolution is only necessary after peaceful secession is denied. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[Teligacio]

BTW, The 2nd American Revolution goes by other names too. One is rather neutral, The War Between The States. Another by who initiated violence, The War of Northern Aggression. The least appropriate and unfortunately most common name is civil war. The reason "civil war" is an improper term to describe the conflict is because in a civil war, they are fighting for control of the existing government. Had the South won, Lincoln would still be President of the USA.

[slimsex]

BTW, The 2nd American Revolution goes by other names too. One is rather neutral, The War Between The States. Another by who initiated violence, The War of Northern Aggression. The least appropriate and unfortunately most common name is civil war. The reason "civil war" is an improper term to describe the conflict is because in a civil war, they are fighting for control of the existing government. Had the South won, Lincoln would still be President of the USA.

You make it sound as if it's over... in many places it isn't.

[ëàìèíàò]

You make it sound as if it's over... in many places it isn't.

The South will one day rise again is a spiritual claim. I have a CSA coin but have not been able to acquire a 20th century or 21st century coin. It's over.

Back then the secession - and issues - were nicely geographic. Today's Liberal/Conservative dichotomy is not as nice. Basically, the coasts are Liberal but the non-coastal States are not. The US is already non-contiguous so maybe that does not present a real practical problem.

I saw the FL AG say she expects 28 States to sign on with her against the federal government regarding Obamacare. Immigration is another fast growing area of contention. Both could quickly lead to two applications of the principle of consent of the governed - nullification or secession.

[Yifnvmzp]

MT had more of a problem with the republican's federal ID thing than with Obamacare. I expect that if the southern states tried to secede again, most of the rocky mountain states, although considered 'red', would not join them. The south is a culture in itself, quite different than the conservatism of the western and central-western US.

[Tjfyojlg]

MT had more of a problem with the republican's federal ID thing than with Obamacare. I expect that if the southern states tried to secede again, most of the rocky mountain states, although considered 'red', would not join them. The south is a culture in itself, quite different than the conservatism of the western and central-western US.

Although your point is speculative, it is irrelevant to the point of consent of the governed and secession. The Rocky Mountain States could secede from the US and not join the South or the South may not secede at all.

[AbeldeldepBug]

If states could freely secede (and potentially re-join), can you imagine the political games that would be played along those lines? I mean if CA (or Texas or NY) threatened to Secede, given the vast scale of its economy (silicon valley particularly), can you imagine the political and economic favors that would be thrown its way in order to tempt it into not seceding?

No, secession cannot be allowed. If you really hate the USA that much you're free to emigrate to another country.

[Stetbrate]

If states could freely secede (and potentially re-join), can you imagine the political games that would be played along those lines? I mean if CA (or Texas or NY) threatened to Secede, given the vast scale of its economy (silicon valley particularly), can you imagine the political and economic favors that would be thrown its way in order to tempt it into not seceding?

Whoa.

Hey -- I hadn't thought of that.

You know, maybe there's more to this idea than I'd realized before.

[22paseabelldaps]

If states could freely secede (and potentially re-join), can you imagine the political games that would be played along those lines? I mean if CA (or Texas or NY) threatened to Secede, given the vast scale of its economy (silicon valley particularly), can you imagine the political and economic favors that would be thrown its way in order to tempt it into not seceding?

No, secession cannot be allowed. If you really hate the USA that much you're free to emigrate to another country.

As broke as California is do you really think there wouldn't be cheers to see them go?

Same with NY.

Texas however...another matter entirely.

[Louthcoombutt]

As broke as California is do you really think there wouldn't be cheers to see them go?

Same with NY.

Texas however...another matter entirely.

Agreed ... A is A.

[GSgCGxsF]

If you want to see how it will start, look no further than the student riots in London yesterday.

It will end about a week later, after all access to the cities is cut off, and they start getting too hot/cold, and hungery.

[CVEGK7mV]

Texas however...another matter entirely.

huh? I'd cheer!

[gyjsdtuwr]

Please tell me how come:
* the colonies of Britain can secede, becoming individual sovereign States;
* Texas can secede from Mexico, becoming a sovereign State;
* the individual sovereign States can secede from the Articles of Confederation, formed in "perpetual union;"
* the counties of western Virginia can secede from Virginia and accepted by the US as a sovereign State in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution;
* but South Carolina and the rest of the South cannot secede from the US not formed in "perpetual union?"

I noticed no one even tried to answer the question of the OP.

[Fiesialenp]

Please tell me how come:
* the colonies of Britain can secede, becoming individual sovereign States;
* Texas can secede from Mexico, becoming a sovereign State;
* the individual sovereign States can secede from the Articles of Confederation, formed in "perpetual union;"
* the counties of western Virginia can secede from Virginia and accepted by the US as a sovereign State in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution;
* but South Carolina and the rest of the South cannot secede from the US not formed in "perpetual union?"

BTW, armed revolution is only necessary after peaceful secession is denied. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

I think to some extent you've answered your own question with that last paragraph. If by seceding you mean peacefully leaving whatever you were part of before. Then it's fair to say that Britains former colonies ( I take it you're referring to what became the USA ) didn't secede - they rebelled and won. Likewise Texas rebelled against Mexico and won. And the reason South Carolina and the rest didn't secede ( or succeed ) is they rebelled and.....lost.

Like the chinese bloke said " power grows out of the barrel of a gun "

[Arrectiff]

I think to some extent you've answered your own question with that last paragraph. If by seceding you mean peacefully leaving whatever you were part of before. Then it's fair to say that Britains former colonies ( I take it you're referring to what became the USA ) didn't secede - they rebelled and won. Likewise Texas rebelled against Mexico and won. And the reason South Carolina and the rest didn't secede ( or succeed ) is they rebelled and.....lost.

Like the chinese bloke said " power grows out of the barrel of a gun "

I think you touch on a good point. When the bullets start flying the rights and wrongs of a cause tend to mean very little. All that matters is who is left standing at the end.

[attishina]

I noticed no one even tried to answer the question of the OP.

Well without reading into your question too deep... if you are asking why can't South Carolina secede from the Union... Now? I don't know. But I thought South Carolina was the first to secede from the Union in 1860. So I guess they still can again.

[Enrobrorb]

Well without reading into your question too deep... if you are asking why can't South Carolina secede from the Union... Now? I don't know. But I thought South Carolina was the first to secede from the Union in 1860. So I guess they still can again.

That is my point. IF their right to secede was not denied the 600,000 Americans who died from bloodshed would have lived a full life and the country would not have suffered from the after math for a century or more. It is my hope the powers inherent in ANY sovereign State are not denied by the US ever again, e.g., nullification and secession.

Clearly, the federal government is not even following its own laws - acting without authority in some cases while ignoring others. In the 2nd Revolution the example was the Fugitive Slave Act. The examples today are with WV @ Article IV, Sec. 3 and now with immigration @ AZ (with 11 others States joining) and 10th Amendment @ Healthcare with FL (and 27 other States joining).

With a majority of States opposing government action as outside their proper scope, a scant few peaceful possibilities emerge:
1. Obama abandons Obamacare, his signature legislation.
2. A Constitutional Convention is convened.
3. 10th Amendment remedies are rejoined, e.g., nullification and secession.

[QuidQuoPro]

That is my point. IF their right to secede was not denied the 600,000 Americans who died from bloodshed would have lived a full life and the country would not have suffered from the after math for a century or more. It is my hope the powers inherent in ANY sovereign State are not denied by the US ever again, e.g., nullification and secession.

While I am not in disagreement with the rest of your post. I am however, not sure I am quite following 100%.

South Carolina did not attempt to secede the Union, it did secede the Union. So did several other states. They rejoined the Union years after the war.

Tennessee July 24. 1866

Arkansas June 22, 1868

Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina June 25, 1868

Alabama July 14, 1868

Virginia January 26, 1870

Mississippi February 23, 1870

Texas March 30, 1870

Georgia July 15, 1870

[Slintreeoost]

While I am not in disagreement with the rest of your post. I am however, not sure I am quite following 100%.

South Carolina did not attempt to secede the Union, it did secede the Union. So did several other states.

That metaphysical point was denied by Lincoln and the Union troops. They argued, the South could not leave the Union, that they did not have the right, James Ostrowski - Lincoln's Secession Arguments.

If you are right and they left the Union, what was the war between sovereign States about then? (The propaganda put forth by the victor AFTER the war began was slavery but that does not hold up to scrutiny. Why not go to war with all countries in the world who still had slavery?)

[bestcigsnick]

It's pretty simple. We reconquered the south. On that note, the difference among the earlier cited secessions (US from Britain, South from US, Texas from Mexico) is all a question of who won the ensuing war.