Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Motivations for rebellion and secession from a nation or kingdom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by arnoldo View Post
    Fair enough. To find the answer you are asking for in this OP ask yourself why the colonists rebelled and seceded from being part of the United Kingdom to form the United States. Was that ethical and moral to do so?
    I believe the rebellion against colonialism is morally grounded as in many colonies that rebelled against one-sided domination by European powers. This was finally recognized by the United Kingdom became the British Commonwealth with the Imperial Conference in 1926.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/12875.stm



    The end of the Empire

    At the Imperial Conference of 1926, the United Kingdom and its dominions agreed that they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

    But only following India and Pakistan's independence in 1947 did the organisation define its modern shape.

    It dropped the word British from its name, the allegiance to the crown from its statute, and became a receptacle for decolonised nations. The Monarch of the United Kingdom, however, remained the official 'Head of the Commonwealth'.

    The ethics of international politics

    A formal 'code of ethics' was adopted in 1971, when Commonwealth countries pledged to improve human rights and to seek racial and economic justice. After the end of the Cold War the organisation expanded its mission statement. At the 1991 Heads of Government meeting in Harare the promotion of democracy and good government were added to the list of Commonwealth principles.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Colonialism is not moral nor ethical.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-19-2017, 02:49 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      You have the sense of humor of a hub cap.
      First the lug nut needs provide some humor worth taking off the hub cap.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        You have the sense of humor of a hub cap.
        Less, cause these would be pretty funny

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          First the lug nut needs provide some humor worth taking off the hub cap.
          Wow, you prove me right, and sink even deeper.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            If they did so what? I enjoy schooling you, but basic English is something you should have learned already.
            I'm still waiting for Shuny to explain what exactly my friends and family are supposed to have done in the support of the institution of slavery so I can answer the question.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #21
              [
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Actually many historians did not consider the Civil War to begin until the Virginia Army Marched North and threatened the Capital of Washington, which resulted in the First Battle of Bull Run on July 21 of 1861.
              Utter rubbish. The Virginia Militia marched north into Northern Virginia, which was still part of a sovereign Virginia, and they were within their rights to defend their borders. The North invaded Alexandria. It was NOT their right to invade Virginia once secession was declared.

              The reason for this was that Virginia and North Carolina had not officially seceded from the Union.
              Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451. North Carolina seceded May 20, 1861. The First Battle of Bull Run (the name used by Union forces), also known as the Battle of First Manassas[1] (the name used by Confederate forces), was fought on July 21, 1861 in Prince William County, Virginia, just north of the city of Manassas and about 25 miles west-southwest of Washington, D.C.

              In this scenario the South began the WAR by attempting to invade the North and attack Washington.
              Your historical ignorance is hilarious. The North began the war by refusing to leave Sumter when South Carolina seceded. The fort no longer belonged to the North Government. Bull Run happened AFTER Virginia and North Carolina seceded. It happened IN Virginia, so there was no invasion. In fact, it was clearly instructed from the North to invade the South and Gen. McDowell invaded Virginia to try to flank the Confederate forces amassed at Manassas. It failed miserably.

              Both Fort Sumter and the Battle of Bull Run represent aggression and declaration of war by the South very much the way the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was a declaration of war by Japan.
              Sumter was the North refusing to leave sovereign land inside the borders of South Carolina after they seceded and Bull Run was the North invading sovereign Virginia after they seceded. Pearl Harbor was Japan attacking a sovereign United States on US soil. There is no similarity.

              And Lincoln wrote Congress on July 4, 1861, a few weeks before Bull Run, requesting war powers to "make short work" of the situation.

              It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty of employing the war power, in defense of the Government, forced upon him.


              The facts of history take precedence over personal assertions based on an agenda.
              You don't know squat about this episode of history. Again, you show that you and facts are strangers who rarely pass in the night.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                I'm still waiting for Shuny to explain what exactly my friends and family are supposed to have done in the support of the institution of slavery so I can answer the question.
                They were born.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  [

                  Utter rubbish. The Virginia Militia marched north into Northern Virginia, which was still part of a sovereign Virginia, and they were within their rights to defend their borders. The North invaded Alexandria. It was NOT their right to invade Virginia once secession was declared.



                  Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451. North Carolina seceded May 20, 1861. The First Battle of Bull Run (the name used by Union forces), also known as the Battle of First Manassas[1] (the name used by Confederate forces), was fought on July 21, 1861 in Prince William County, Virginia, just north of the city of Manassas and about 25 miles west-southwest of Washington, D.C.



                  Your historical ignorance is hilarious. The North began the war by refusing to leave Sumter when South Carolina seceded. The fort no longer belonged to the North Government. Bull Run happened AFTER Virginia and North Carolina seceded. It happened IN Virginia, so there was no invasion. In fact, it was clearly instructed from the North to invade the South and Gen. McDowell invaded Virginia to try to flank the Confederate forces amassed at Manassas. It failed miserably.



                  Sumter was the North refusing to leave sovereign land inside the borders of South Carolina after they seceded and Bull Run was the North invading sovereign Virginia after they seceded. Pearl Harbor was Japan attacking a sovereign United States on US soil. There is no similarity.

                  And Lincoln wrote Congress on July 4, 1861, a few weeks before Bull Run, requesting war powers to "make short work" of the situation.

                  It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty of employing the war power, in defense of the Government, forced upon him.




                  You don't know squat about this episode of history. Again, you show that you and facts are strangers who rarely pass in the night.
                  The Confederacy wasn't interested in invading or occupying the Northern states but rather were intent on defending their sovereignty.

                  Still, it cannot be denied that the South fired the first shots (Fort Sumter) thus initiating hostilities. However, there was a whole lot of provoking that went on before that.

                  Robert Anderson, the commander of the Union forces in Charleston, was specifically selected by General Winfield Scott because he was believed to be sympathetic to the South[1] and would avoid any actions provocative to South Carolina. But Scott was wrong about Anderson.

                  After the South Carolina seceded (the first state to do so), Anderson, without orders, moved his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor and then had the cannons (which had until then been aimed seaward and hence defending the city) moved so that they were trained upon the city instead. This act was obviously considered highly proactive and defiant by both sides at the time as other garrisons had simply moved out.

                  James Buchanan, who was still president at the time that Anderson took matters into his own hands, was said to have been pretty upset with him.









                  1. Anderson himself was a slaveholder from Kentucky although he had sold his slaves shortly before the outbreak of hostilities.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    I'm still waiting for Shuny to explain what exactly my friends and family are supposed to have done in the support of the institution of slavery so I can answer the question.
                    They are not morally justified supporting the institution of slavery involving involuntary servitude, torture, forced labor, and arbitrary execution of slaves.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      They are not morally justified supporting the institution of slavery involving involuntary servitude, torture, forced labor, and arbitrary execution of slaves.
                      That little speech aside, can you now try to answer his question, please?

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      I'm still waiting for Shuny to explain what exactly my friends and family are supposed to have done in the support of the institution of slavery so I can answer the question.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Utter rubbish. The Virginia Militia marched north into Northern Virginia, which was still part of a sovereign Virginia, and they were within their rights to defend their borders. The North invaded Alexandria. It was NOT their right to invade Virginia once secession was declared.
                        In what way was it not their right? This seems like saying a police officer doesn't have the right to arrest someone committing a crime, which the secession essentially was.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          In what way was it not their right? This seems like saying a police officer doesn't have the right to arrest someone committing a crime, which the secession essentially was.
                          Please cite the law the secessionists broke.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                            In what way was it not their right? This seems like saying a police officer doesn't have the right to arrest someone committing a crime, which the secession essentially was.
                            If secession was against the law then wouldn't trying to put the issue on the ballot (which is taking place in California right now) be tantamount to conspiracy to commit a crime?

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Please cite the law the secessionists broke.
                              As they claimed they were no longer part of the United States, inherently they were breaking any law they no longer recognized, the obvious one that more directly led to the war being the attack on Fort Sumpter (I am fairly certain that armed attack on a military fort is a violation of some law). But if you wish a more specific case, from Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution:
                              "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

                              Also, while admittedly given after the fact, the Supreme Court established in Texas v. White that the unilateral secession attempted was illegal (this was the rationale for why Texas still retained bonds it sold during the Civil War--because Texas's attempt to leave the union was not legal, actions done under the "Confederate government" were invalid which included the sales of the bonds).

                              In regards to the previous claim that the US government lacked the right to fight the South:

                              Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
                              "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

                              See also the Insurrection Act.

                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              If secession was against the law then wouldn't trying to put the issue on the ballot (which is taking place in California right now) be tantamount to conspiracy to commit a crime?
                              The attempt to put the issue on the ballot seems to have been suspended for now. However, as noted, it is unilateral secession that is illegal, which happened during the Civil War. Secession with the agreement of the rest of the states would be another matter, which was actually stated in Texas v. White. California certainly has the right to try to get more states to agree to allow it to secede, but not to simply up and declare itself independent without that.

                              Indeed, the group states this on their site, or at least did state it as it seems the page was deleted or moved, but here you go. It repeats some of what I have said, namely that unilateral secession would be disallowed, but sufficient consent of the rest of the country would allow it. As the goal is--or is at least claimed to be--a legal secession, there is therefore nothing illegal about the referendum.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                They are not morally justified supporting the institution of slavery involving involuntary servitude, torture, forced labor, and arbitrary execution of slaves.
                                That doesn't really tell me what you would have done to your family and friends if they supported the institution of slavery (or simply opposed having armed men show up and try to stop it by force).

                                You know, since you're so mad about General Lee siding with the people around him than foreign tyrants I want to know to which extent you would be willing to slaughter your friends and family en masse if they don't show the appropriate enthusiasm for your moral crusades.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                140 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                374 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X