Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Clutts who wrote (1232)	11/2/1999 5:57:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

I do not forget the Confederacy. I have had several arguments on SI supporting Lincoln! My position is that it is the responsibility of the central government to preserve territorial integrity, and therefore it will ordinarily react militarily to attempts at secession. Those who wish to secede had better have a good case for resorting to arms, rather than operating within the existing framework. If their case is good enough, maybe they can negotiate their way to independence, or win international support. But since it is predictable that they will be resisted as engaging in an extra- legal act, they had better have a good case. Since the central issue of the Civil War was the preservation of chattel slavery (I have found admissions by Jefferson Davis and others to that effect), there was no just cause. Since there was no legal mechanism for secession, there was no "right". Since the preamble of the Constitution states that "We the people of the United States" ordain it, the theory of sovereignty deriving from the states does not hold up....