3 ms·

Secession and federalism are fairly naive. We already tried those solutions. In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict.

Secession and federalism are fairly naive. We already tried those solutions. In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict. And at what unit do we consider secession acceptable? The Confederacy believed states had the right to secede but not individuals of African descent. Indeed, it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business of the North in order to crack down on fugitive slaves. As for people with different moral axioms leaving one another alone, good luck with that. The US and ISIS have different moral axioms but they're both in one another's business. The world is interdependent, there's just no way around that simple fact. I don't mean to silence discussions of federalism/secession, it just seems like this is well-trod territory that some people keep bringing up again and again as if it will solve anything. It hasn't and it won't.

carsongross 11y ago
In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict. Secession and federalism lead to neither. Slavery was a pre-existing institution. War is politics by other means and pre-existed both. It being associated with secessionism in one case is no more an argument against secessionism than war being associated with democratic revolutions is an argument against democracy. Naive: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Heal thyself.
brightball 11y ago
I don't mean to get into a civil war discussion, because studying it is a hobby of mine (it's just a very interesting subject)...but at the very least I'd urge you to consider that there are a lot of very important details being left out in order for you to view it that way. There was almost a century of political back and forth build up that compounded to lead to secession. Just to highlight one detail to give the counterpoint on your example: > Indeed, it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business of the North in order to crack down on fugitive slaves. For that, you should read up on the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 that nearly triggered secession when it was passed. This presented a huge problem to the Port of Charleston and trade with Europe, so much so that South Carolina tried to have it nullified and the Supreme Court said that it could not. When documents of secession reference fugitive slave laws, they're doing so because some northern states were allowed to selectively nullify while the south was not. This came to a head with the Morrill Tariff which was a part of Lincoln's campaign. Indeed, in his first inaugural address preceding the war he even stated that fugitive slave laws would be enforced and that federal force would only be used for collection of duties and imposts. That's the reason Fort Sumter was such a big deal in the first place because whoever held it had the power to enforce port taxes on Charleston harbor. To be clear, I'm not saying that was the cause of the war I'm just highlighting a detail. There were a lot of factors. The whole thing is a sincerely fascinating subject and is even more interesting when, through studying it, you compare it to the relatively few details we're actually taught about it in school.
makeitsuckless 11y ago
You realise millions of us happily and peacefully live in smaller countries that are the successful result of secession?

carsongross 11y ago

In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict. Secession and federalism lead to neither. Slavery was a pre-existing institution. War is politics by other means and pre-existed both. It being associated with secessionism in one case is no more an argument against secessionism than war being associated with democratic revolutions is an argument against democracy. Naive: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Heal thyself.

brightball 11y ago

I don't mean to get into a civil war discussion, because studying it is a hobby of mine (it's just a very interesting subject)...but at the very least I'd urge you to consider that there are a lot of very important details being left out in order for you to view it that way. There was almost a century of political back and forth build up that compounded to lead to secession. Just to highlight one detail to give the counterpoint on your example: > Indeed, it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business of the North in order to crack down on fugitive slaves. For that, you should read up on the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 that nearly triggered secession when it was passed. This presented a huge problem to the Port of Charleston and trade with Europe, so much so that South Carolina tried to have it nullified and the Supreme Court said that it could not. When documents of secession reference fugitive slave laws, they're doing so because some northern states were allowed to selectively nullify while the south was not. This came to a head with the Morrill Tariff which was a part of Lincoln's campaign. Indeed, in his first inaugural address preceding the war he even stated that fugitive slave laws would be enforced and that federal force would only be used for collection of duties and imposts. That's the reason Fort Sumter was such a big deal in the first place because whoever held it had the power to enforce port taxes on Charleston harbor. To be clear, I'm not saying that was the cause of the war I'm just highlighting a detail. There were a lot of factors. The whole thing is a sincerely fascinating subject and is even more interesting when, through studying it, you compare it to the relatively few details we're actually taught about it in school.

makeitsuckless 11y ago

You realise millions of us happily and peacefully live in smaller countries that are the successful result of secession?