Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Because 140 Characters isn’t Always Enough

Twitter isn’t the best place to converse due to the limits imposed. This post is mainly for suenarmie as a response to some of her tweets.

@usapines Gen Wasington was a Virginian? No. Powhatans, yes. The white Americans
rising against Britain was right but Confederation wrong?
General President Washington was indeed a Virginian. He was born there, raised there and participated in Virginian society and state. Chief Powhatan was not a Virginian. While Powhatan may have resided on the land that would become the territory of Virginia, he was not part of that society. Powhatan was the head of his own.

Yes Americans rising up against Kingdom of Great Britain was right. For the most part, the colonists were happy to continue to be a part of the empire but then Great Britain got involved in some wars and racked up their debt. Well where were they going to raise money? Hmm, their colonies in the New World of course. So the Parliament at Westminster passed acts that started to tax the colonists. The colonists had no representation in Parliament. Britain continued to pass acts that further enraged the colonists even going as far as altering the colonial legislatures. Westminster declared that it alone had the right to legislate upon the colonies even though the colonies had no representation. For further charges against King George and the British Parliament, I urge you to read the Declaration of Independence. It's there, listed out.

I’m assuming when you mention “Confederation” you are referring to the Confederate States of America rather than the Articles. The CSA is entirely a different case than that of what happened between the colonies and Great Britain. Before the U.S. Constitution, the colonies were separate and independent states but they were bound loosely under the Articles Confederation and this union was to be “perpetual.” The first government, however, was not strong and so the U.S. Constitution was drafted and the states were given the choice to join the union or be released. Although the new constitution did not refer to the union as being “perpetual” the concept remained. This is the line of thought that Pres. Lincoln used when he argued that the southern states could not leave the union. That once you’re in, you’re in forever.

Now I honestly cannot see how you can make a comparison between the colonies and the southern states. As I said, the driving wedge between the colonies and Great Britain was the lack of representation of the colonies in the government that was legislating over them. This is not the case with the CSA. In fact, the southern states arguably had more of a say in the government that they were so aggrieved against than the colonies could even dream about having in Westminster.

It’s fine to argue that states have the right to leave the union. Personally I do not believe in the idea of perpetual union. However, I do believe that states cannot flippantly decide they want to leave the union. Joining the United States required two things: 1, that the people of the applicant state wanted to join and 2, that the people of the United States wanted them to join. It follows that the only way for a state to leave the union for that state’s own people to want to secede and that the rest of the people in the U.S. wants them to leave as well. In other words, you go out the same way you come in.

@usapines Feelings have nothing 2 do with the law. Many Muslims feel nonMuslims
should not b in Muslim countries but killing them is murder.

I don’t know where you are pulling this out from either. Please show me where I am letting passion overriding the reason when it comes to law

No comments: