The Decleration says we have the obligation to rebel..

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-05 02:23pm

If you are expecting rebellion, wouldnt you stock up your forts and military bases?

Obviously, preparing for an inevitable rebellion might have provoked the South and counted as Northern aggressio according to him.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-05 02:26pm

A series of unfair tarrifs namely. And as I maintain there is no need for their to be a clear series of grievences to seceed, all one member state has to do is wish it.

That isn't correct. Please first state what tarrifs you disagree with.

On the second point, you are correct, however, for states don't need to get permission to leave the union. They can't anyway.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-05 02:29pm

well the stupidest thing the southern states did was ceeding.

of course with a decade or more of war between Missuri and Kansas....

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-07-06 02:31am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:

Wouldn't a city-state fall under the many states housing one nation category?
A city state is a nation unto itself if I remember Western Civ correctly. The USSR was a nation with many republican states in it,but they weren't city-states. They were nation-states. THe USSR was like a big Communist Federation of non-independent states, yes. The united states is not made up of nations or city-states. It is just made up of republican style former territories. I think there is a difference between a nationstate and a state of the USA.

A nation is a group of people who shares common customs, origins, history, and/or language and is not necessarily a nation-state. A state can either be refered to the US states or a sovereign political entity. An empire can be or not be a nation-state. The Mongolian Empire, for example, consisted of many nations all controled by the Kahn, it later splintered and integrated with the people that it had conquered.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-07-06 02:38am

forgot to finishand no edit button, very annoying.

The Mongolian Empire, for example, consisted of many nations all controled by the Kahn, it later splintered and integrated with the people that it had conquered and then became a nation-state.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-06 02:36pm

The Mongolian Empire, for example, consisted of many nations all controled by the Kahn, it later splintered and integrated with the people that it had conquered.

I never said an Empire can't be a group of nation-states. I said the United States is not made up of them

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 2004-07-07 10:00pm

That's fucking retarded. So it's wrong for nations to protect their own existence? Jesus H. Christ, do you realize that nations would have no power if their hands are completely tied when their very existence is threatened?

What nation?

So they weren't getting their way in Congress, therefore, they have the right to secede? By that logic, there's no point in having a country, the states don't even have to cooperate!

I did not write the Constitution. It left quite a few items untouched.

If you are expecting rebellion, wouldnt you stock up your forts and military bases?

If I was the President, and a state voted to seceede, no.

Please first state what tarrifs you disagree with.

I disagree with all tarrifs. Free Trade!

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-07-11 12:52am

Well Chief Justice Chase certainly gave much room for the power of State governments (though setting the idea of a hotel with only an entrance door) and basically said that the Federal Government has a duty to keep those State governments prosperous and functioning. Was that what you ment?

I meant that had the ruling gone to White rather than Texas, the governments of the states that attempted secession would have been entirely dissolved until new state constitutions were drawn up and every last government bureaucrat replaced. White's argument was that a Texas state law which was inconvenient to him (I forget the details as to which one, but that's not important) had no legal hold because (he said) the state government of Texas was not a valid legal entity post-secession. The rights of the southern states would have gone entirely out the window had he won his case; declaring the secession void was the only way Justice Chase could have saved Texas (and the rest of the former Confederacy) from dissolution. Are you sure you want that ruling overturned? Because that would dissolve every state that rebelled in 1860-65.