Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

Alfred Montestruc <montestruc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:23 am, archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Nate Edel) wrote:
> > AlfredMontestruc<montest...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > This from a nation that had as an ideal the idea of consent of the
> > > governed.  If that is indeed a requirement for just government, then
> > > that consent can be withdrawn.
> >
> > And sometimes that withdrawal requires the force of arms: witness the
> > American Revolution.
> >
> > On the other hand, it will almost inevitably opposed by force of arms
>
> No, a significant number of cases of secession exist with out
> bloodshed,

Sorry, poor wording.  To be clearer: "if in the course of attempting that
withdrawal, you resort to force of arms, it will almost inevitably opposed
by force of arms in return"

Although that should have been clear from context from what I next said:

> > as well.  Sensible folks exhaust their options under the rule of law
> > first;

> That (when legal options are exhausted) is a matter of opinion, many
> people in what became the USA felt that patriots like Washington,
> Jefferson and Adams were traitors to the King and Parliament and had
> not  at all exhausted options under rule of law.  They were  commonly
> called  Tories at the time, many of them joined the king's forces and
> fought against patriots.  Some of the worst atrocities of the American
> Revolution were massacres of civilians of the other side by militia of
> both sides.

Yes.  Others, like some of the conservatives in the Continental Congress,
felt that legal options were not exhausted, but sided with the colonies
once
the revolution was in progress and once Independence was declared.

Moreover, the British resorted to the use of force first, and before
Independence was even (at least formally) on the table.

> > the Southern states didn't come remotely close to that.
>
> Matter of opinion.  In fact I think that for them to have had a good
> chance they should have seceded long before that, say right after the
> annexation of Texas which stirred up a firestorm of North-South
> hatred.  The tide of demographics and economics was against them and
> for them to win, they needed to do so when they had larger military
> forces and capability in proportion to those of the north.

They never gave a peaceable and legal secession a chance; whether they
"should" have seceded at some prior justification is irrelevant to the
question of how secession was conducted in late 1860 and early 1861.  The
Southern states abandoned any pretense of conducting the secession via
legal
means (act of congress, treaty, or the supreme court - any of which could
potentially have been viable) and instead proceeded unilaterally to sieze
federal property before Lincoln was even inaugurated.


> > If the founding fathers had been so rash, the Revolution would have
> > started in 1765 and been swiftly squashed.
>
> I will agree that timing is critical, but not that waiting longer is
> always wise, and exhausting legal recourse is a matter of opinion,
> until you are dead.  If you expect people to keep using legal recourse
> till they are dead, that is expecting a lot.

Funny that, when the Southerners fired the first shots at Fort Sumter.

-- 
Nate Edel                               http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
 preferred email  | 
 is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It is obscenity.
 posting domain   |  I'm for it." - prologue to "Smut" by Tom Lehrer