04-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Rhydderch Hael,
As I said, that was merely a guess off the top of my head. My cares about the American Civil War are few, and History is so large and interesting that there doesn't seem much reason for me to dive into it. I'm sure it would sharpen my understanding of how these things were interpreted a century and a half ago.
However, as to your argument, what you're saying is that, despite every example of rebellion, including the American Civil War, having been crushed by military force rather than accepted as being a constitutional right, the fact that they only threw Jefferson Davis in the slammer for a couple years, rather than killing him, is an indication of the right of rebellion in the USA?
Also, that the "right to rebellion" that, unlike everything else in the bill of rights, including the right to bear arms, is "implemented" (as Ashock says) through the fact it isn't explicitly banned, despite having been in the declaration of independence?
I think that's a little bit of a stretch. Clearly the Union thought so too, 'cause they whomped the South on the battlefield then put them back into the USA by force. At the very least, if you maintain the notion that the south was "right" and the north was "might", that still means that, de facto, there is no "implemented" right to rebellion. From where I stand, it would make it kind of a joke, the right you can excercise freely if you don't mind being slammed by the full force of the US military.
And, I would think, this whole issue would speak only as to whether a state of the union has the right to seccede, under the strong interpretation that *anything* not explicitly earmarked for the feds is the right of the states. This power would not devolve to individual citizens in any case.
-Jester
As I said, that was merely a guess off the top of my head. My cares about the American Civil War are few, and History is so large and interesting that there doesn't seem much reason for me to dive into it. I'm sure it would sharpen my understanding of how these things were interpreted a century and a half ago.
However, as to your argument, what you're saying is that, despite every example of rebellion, including the American Civil War, having been crushed by military force rather than accepted as being a constitutional right, the fact that they only threw Jefferson Davis in the slammer for a couple years, rather than killing him, is an indication of the right of rebellion in the USA?
Also, that the "right to rebellion" that, unlike everything else in the bill of rights, including the right to bear arms, is "implemented" (as Ashock says) through the fact it isn't explicitly banned, despite having been in the declaration of independence?
I think that's a little bit of a stretch. Clearly the Union thought so too, 'cause they whomped the South on the battlefield then put them back into the USA by force. At the very least, if you maintain the notion that the south was "right" and the north was "might", that still means that, de facto, there is no "implemented" right to rebellion. From where I stand, it would make it kind of a joke, the right you can excercise freely if you don't mind being slammed by the full force of the US military.
And, I would think, this whole issue would speak only as to whether a state of the union has the right to seccede, under the strong interpretation that *anything* not explicitly earmarked for the feds is the right of the states. This power would not devolve to individual citizens in any case.
-Jester