GhostWriter16
Deity
You're afraid that I will ignore you because you're explaining something? Is hypocrisy another of those basic concepts of which you have no grasp?
However, since I'm prepared to be open-minded about this, where does it specifically say that individual states can secede? This does not mean a passage in the eye of the beholder, but an actual statement allowing armed secession from the USA.
First of all, if the Union had allowed it it would not have been armed rebellion. The Union occupied southern territory and so if the South was legit the Union attacked first, at least, that's the South's PoV.
Secondly, it has to specifically say that they can't or else they can. The 10th amendment says so.
Then why do you always use that reasoning? Your reasoning is always that you want something to mean a certain thing, despite all evidence to the contrary. Like your insistence on being wrong about the 10th. Now, if you wanted to deal with objective reality, then objectively speaking, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means. And the Court says that the Constitution does not allow secession. So objectively and logically you have no ground to stand on at all.
SCOTUS affirmed their own right to do so in 1807, and the Court is by definition not impartial since conservative or liberal leaning presidents pick them.
Also, the Supreme court had said no such thing when the South seceeded. And SCOTUS often says things that aren't there, like Roe VS Wade, which was NEVER spoken about in the Constitution. Neither was secession. Therefore, it is not the federal government's power to stop it.
You got one thing right, you can't win this debate. One of the core reasons of the CSA's creation was to enslave others and it didn't even try and seceed through congress or SCOTUS. They just threw a big hissy fit that resulted in 650,000 getting killed
Define noble cause. If a secession movement fits the UN guidelines for a legal secession movement I would agree with it. If the core of the movement was a result of numerous and sustained grievances activly or intentionaly created the the government and all lawful means of secession failed, then I would support the secession.
Domination, accept it. The CSA was a illegal state whose entire reason for existance was a percieved insult and unsubstantial fear that their society based on enslaving others might be infringed so they threw a big hissy fit that resulted in the deaths of up to 700,000 individuals.
Did the CSA have a full opportunity to have a court or governing body to hear their greivances? Yes.
Did they use either of those chanels? No.
Then inherently it was an illegal state.
You do realize this is opinion right? At least acknowledge that. And the UN has no real power over everyone.