I've noticed a common double standard among many Americans during any discussions about the Civil War or modern day talk of secession. The usual sentiment is that secession is unconstitutional and anyone who suggests it is a horrible idiot traitor.

This is all pretty ironic, considering that the U.S was born of a secession movement that by definition had nothing legal behind it. The colonists didn't like the British government so they split off and tried to make their own country. Similarly, back during the Civil War the southern states didn't like the U.S government and tried to do the same thing. The only difference is that the South failed. Now I believe the CSA was wrong because of slavery, but I don't see how secession in itself is unjustifiable.

If the U.S was born under rebellion, under the premise that people had the right to leave a government that now longer met their needs, then why is it so crazy to suggest that modern day states can do the same thing?

Note that the U.S. left the UK more due to a perceived lack of representation... The South was represented.

Also, given that the Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional and their sole job is to interpret the Constitution I'd say it is safe to say it is in fact unconstitutional.

Any talk of secession should reference the threatened secession by New England during the War of 1812 due to the trade embargoes hurting their economy. Their three was negated by the war ending

Why would any government just let parts of their country secede?

Also, given that the Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional and their sole job is to interpret the Constitution I'd say it is safe to say it is in fact unconstitutional.

There's nothing in the Constitution about secession, for or against. Plus, the Supreme Court is known to take liberties with the Constitution and label things as constitutional or not depending on what fits the current agenda. Also, they're part of the government. So of course they'll say that.

Why would any government just let parts of their country secede?

The U.K let Scotland have a vote.

But why?

No Eklipse you don't get to make a slave state named Eklipsistan and secede from the union. We've been over this before.

UK let Scotland have a vote

To compare the modern era to that of one 200+ years ago is not sound. Allowing a nation to vote for secession would have been maddness during that time as monarchs were still a prevalent thing. People were trying to build empires. If Scotland demanded independence during the time frame of America's independence movements, Britain would no doubt put it down.

>Eklipse whining about the US

Where have I seen this before?

>Eklipse whining about the US

Where have I seen this before?

But whining about the US is always entertaining.

Why is it that the only forum posts I've seen by Eklipse have all been in defense of the Confederacy? And why is he telling people to "stop being offended by a square piece of fabric" that symbolizes some of the vilest ideologies in recent history when he can't even stop whining about his own absurd views not being taken seriously by anyone?

@Eklipse: the Americans cited individual rights as their reason for secession (e.g., self-determination)- which is why it's called "independence" and not secession (it was grounded on individualistic claims to self-determination). The Confederate argument was grounded instead on the notion of states' rights- the view that federal administrative regions have the authority to detach themselves from their central government and seize control of all federal property within their boundaries. There's a difference between leaving the British Empire (or any empire for that means) to seek self-determination and trying to leave the US because a black man got elected (essentially the reason in Texas in 2012, based on my perceptions while living there) or to deprive other human beings of their individual rights.

Moreover, the ideology of secession isn't practical outside some narrow bounds (i.e., self-determination). You need your federal constitution to be a binding (and yes, coercive) contract because, while it's net beneficial, some parts of it are going to hurt some members and the entire structure falls apart when people just opt out or leave for those parts. It adds much more trouble to an administrative system than it's worth.

Edited 6/26/2015 10:42:57

No Eklipse you don't get to make a slave state named Eklipsistan and secede from the union. We've been over this before.

I realize you're likely trolling, but I'll go ahead and bite. I denounced slavery in my initial post, slavery is bad mmmmm'kay? This isn't about that.

To compare the modern era to that of one 200+ years ago is not sound. Allowing a nation to vote for secession would have been maddness during that time as monarchs were still a prevalent thing. People were trying to build empires. If Scotland demanded independence during the time frame of America's independence movements, Britain would no doubt put it down.

I was asking why modern day U.S can't hold a vote when modern day U.K does.

Why is it that the only forum posts I've seen by Eklipse have all been in defense of the Confederacy?

I've never outright defended the Confederacy. I've only supported the rights of people to fly the Confederate flag if they choose, and stated that the idea of secession should at-least be considered. Rather than laughed out of the building at any mention.

And why is he telling people to "stop being offended by a square piece of fabric" that symbolizes some of the vilest ideologies in recent history

Ironic. I very much recall you (Or at-least your clan mates) being on the defensive side of a very similar argument regarding that Imperial Japanese flag you're clan uses. In fact, I was on your side during that debate. It's strange how you're suddenly on the opposite side of the fence....

As for "vilest ideologies" in recent history, you do realize that nearly every other major world flag flew over a slave holding nation not long before the Confederacy existed(Or even after in some cases)? Just because they ditched slavery earlier doesn't make them better in any sense.

when he can't even stop whining about his own absurd views not being taken seriously by anyone?

Excuse me, but did I offend you somehow on another thread? I don't recall doing any whining about how seriously I'm taken. This thread wasn't me whining, it was me bringing up a legitimate issue for discussion. In fact, I don't hardly recall us interacting at all on the forums. You seem needlessly hostile.

Edited 6/26/2015 14:19:21

I was asking why modern day U.S can't hold a vote when modern day U.K does.

Because after the Civil War, articles were passed which made session unconstitutional. To be unconstitutional could easily be considered traitorous. Basically, when you're in the union you're in for life unless you can win a war against the Federal government.

Edited 6/26/2015 15:25:45

Ironic. I very much recall you (Or at-least your clan mates) being on the defensive side of a very similar argument regarding that Imperial Japanese flag you're clan uses. In fact, I was on your side during that debate. It's strange how you're suddenly on the opposite side of the fence....

Except the Rising Sun flag isn't solely associated with Imperial Japan. We are not flying it as a symbol of Imperial Japan but instead as a symbol of Japan. Unlike the Confederate Battle Flag, it has a history outside its usage by a rogue state.

As for "vilest ideologies" in recent history, you do realize that nearly every other major world flag flew over a slave holding nation not long before the Confederacy existed(Or even after in some cases)? Just because they ditched slavery earlier doesn't make them better in any sense.

Rome had slaves. Britian had slaves. The Union had slaves. Just like the Confederacy.

But none of them were founded (explicitly, read their secession charters) explicitly to protect slavery. None of them went to war solely for the sake of slavery.

Knyte could you outline the uses of the CORP/Imperial Japan flag?
EDIT: The Crimean Khanate was basically for enslaving people

Edited 6/26/2015 16:22:33

@Tupac:

1. It's not the Imperial Japanese flag. It's the Rising Sun flag which predates the Empire of Japan. You can find it in Japan today, too, on anything from commercial beer cans to calendars to newspapers, used to bring luck/fortune rather than refer back to the days of Imperial Japan. The reason we associate it with Imperial Japan is because we don't live in Japan so we haven't seen it used outside that one context, but it is a quintessentially Japanese symbol rather than an Imperial one.

2. CORP does not endorse imperialism or Imperial Japan. CORP does not welcome ethnic nationalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, and other forms of subjugation. We use this flag as a part of Japanese culture, similar to how it was used by daimyo during the Edo period. We specifically do not condone the actions of Imperial Japan or of any imperialist state throughout history.

3. The flag is also used as our Clan Icon as it lends itself to modification easily. Our previous yin-yang icon, on top of making us easy to confuse with the Yin-Yang clan, was also a bit annoying to change. The Rising Sun flag has obviously been modified a lot in real life. We need symbols that lend themselves to being altered because each of our Dojos has its own flag/icon and we change our Clan Icon monthly based on the winner of the previous month's Dojo Cup. For example, next month you might see this as our Clan Icon (if Scorpio Dojo wins the Dojo Cup):



Basically, it's disingenuous to compare us to a bunch of hillbillies flying the flag of the Confederacy. We're flying a flag that doesn't belong to imperialists, that is largely used outside imperialist contexts, and has little to do with Imperial Japan. There are US military units that fly this flag and incorporate it into their emblems, not to relate themselves to Imperial Japan but to symbolize good fortune. At the very worst, we're reclaiming a symbol that was stolen by imperialists.

While similar revolution and civil war are very different, and while they would have enjoyed representation, it was more of a rallying tool than an actual request, the US knew if it was represented it would almost always be overridden by other members of parliament, on top of that the British feel very similarly, about the Scottish call for succession throughout the 20th century

"I realize you're likely trolling, but I'll go ahead and bite. I denounced slavery in my initial post, slavery is bad mmmmm'kay? This isn't about that. " NO BITING. BAD EKLIPSE. *sprays with water bottle*

Basically, it's disingenuous to compare us to a bunch of hillbillies flying the flag of the Confederacy. We're flying a flag that doesn't belong to imperialists, that is largely used outside imperialist contexts, and has little to do with Imperial Japan.

The Confederate flag was flown by the Confederacy itself for 4 years, the total time that various people have flown it after that is well over a 100.

Also, the Rising Sun very much has a lot to with Imperial Japan since it was their official flag. It seems like you're just making convenient excuses.

However, I'll go ahead and clarify that I don't actually have a problem with you using that flag. My issue is the double standard you seem to have. You can't preach about how another flag should be banned while sporting a questionable one yourself.

"I realize you're likely trolling, but I'll go ahead and bite. I denounced slavery in my initial post, slavery is bad mmmmm'kay? This isn't about that. " NO BITING. BAD EKLIPSE. *sprays with water bottle*

You don't have enough badges to train me.

Edited 6/26/2015 19:37:55

A big issue not thought of:

You have to realize not everyone in the Confederacy was some rich land owner, or plantation owner.

Mostly, they were just middle class/poor white guys. They might have owned a farm or two. But that's it.

If the slaves were freed, they'd lose their jobs. You can see how one would be motivated to fight to the death when your living is at stake.

I do not agree that a state of America should attempt to forcefully secede for the sake of peace. The leftist East Coast people such as in New York and Colombia are so completely different on so many levels from those in the South or the North or the West. In fact, I believe that Alaskans and Texans have greater similarities to each other than their East Coast cousins. If Scotland deserves a vote to determine whether or not she should secede from the Act of Union, despite actually inheriting England themselves rather than visa versa, American states so far alienated by far-flung overlords should be given the same right.
The only difference I can personally see between the two situations is that Scotland would have remained a part of the Crown, but would have simply removed the Prime Minister which is kinda like Texas staying in the union and the dollar but having its own elections and presidents and constitution and laws.