Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
I found something interesting in my research also that I would like to share. It is the "Paradox of Democratic Secession" Seems logical to me.
There lies another difference between the American Revolution and the American Civil War.
The revolution was an act of creating a democracy as the colonies had no power of democracy to begin with.
The Confederate States were performing an action that was antithetical to democracy.
Then there is this one:
In essence it is: "We let you be part of this democracy, therefore we are permitted to keep you in it.
The situation the southern states were in was like in a court case were someone writes up a personal contract with someone that if he fails in the goal he has to forefeit his firstborn to the other half of the contract.
The Judge will say, though the contract states it, you have no legal right to do this.
The same goes to secession from a democracy. You can state it in a contract that you hold the right to seceede, but the definition of democracy prohibits it.
|
The concept you bring up is that a contract can not be based on illegality. I prefer to use a different example than yours: an employment contract in which it is specified that the employer is not required to pay an hourly employee overtime, no matter how many hours the employee puts in.
There are very clear laws prohibiting the practice above, unlike the act of secession, on which there were no prohibitions. In fact, as was earlier stated, three states demanded that right, and the other ten acceded.
Let's review:
First you said in an earlier post that
Quote:
|
Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union.
|
(Post #38)
You followed that up with
Quote:
American Civil War: a process agreed upon in the constitution for seccession, the confederacy ignores it and just declares independence.
They had the right to leave, but you can't just say "Bye" There are procedures.
|
(Post #42)
Ergo, if you are to be believed in regard to the above, and in regard to your comments regarding democracy in #90, our Constitution is an illegal contract.
Therefore, the South was within its rights to terminate the contract.
Please note that it is not my position that the Constitution is an illegal contract. I am simply pointing out what I see as a flaw in your argument.
I should also note that you seem to waver between saying the states had a right to secede, and saying they had no such right.