damian
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,915
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
An interesting academic exercise but not much else.
An interesting academic exercise but not much else.
Opening up old wounds (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
-- Al
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,434
I actually hadn't heard of this but do find it interesting, particularly the comparision to secession 1861 style. The question to me would be if the colonies had formed a voluntary pact with England or did this involve some sort of duress. That differs from the independent states signing the Constitution in 1787. They each voluntary signed an agreement but there was no termination clause in the Constitution that permitted secession; you just can't terminate an agreement can you because you feel like it, without penalty, can you. Of course, that particular question has been debated endlessly :wink2:
Napoleon1er
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,085
Pointless but having some interesting points. Trivial reasons? Yes. ACW comparison? Yes. Illegal/immoral? No.
-Sandor
-Sandor
Fusilier
Master Sergeant
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Al is right, it is a little late for this debate. In fact, the original debate took eight years, and we all know the result!
Seriously though, to infer that such founding documents are illegitimate due to the legal status of the composing body is silly. Yes, provincial assemblies, and even the Continental Congress were extra-legal bodies. Any true student of the period knows that. However, such knowledge does not diminish the importance of the arguments they present. The passage of history provides the legitamacy of the Declaration, not the legal status of the composers. At the same time, the end result of Revolution itself contributes to this legitamacy.
I think the example of secession proves my point. Since the secessionist states were defeated in the Civil War, we view their secessionist documents as invalid or illegitamate. Had the South won the Civil War, I dare say we would view their same secessionist documents through a different lens.
Noah
Seriously though, to infer that such founding documents are illegitimate due to the legal status of the composing body is silly. Yes, provincial assemblies, and even the Continental Congress were extra-legal bodies. Any true student of the period knows that. However, such knowledge does not diminish the importance of the arguments they present. The passage of history provides the legitamacy of the Declaration, not the legal status of the composers. At the same time, the end result of Revolution itself contributes to this legitamacy.
I think the example of secession proves my point. Since the secessionist states were defeated in the Civil War, we view their secessionist documents as invalid or illegitamate. Had the South won the Civil War, I dare say we would view their same secessionist documents through a different lens.
Noah