On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> Of course, it was a fight for supremacy between the northern
> industrial
> complex and the southern agricultural states, of course both wanted a
> different management of the economy. The problem was the north
> needed to
> stop the secession of the south because it would have hindered their
> hegemonic projects. But then, you are called the "united" "states"
> so I
> guess the southerners had a RIGHT to secede. About the crap they feed
> you about slavery and stuff, that was only the excuse, after all USA
> did
> not go to war with other states over slavery.
Slavery was the moral justification for what was essentially economic
differences. The southern economy would have been severely hampered
without it.
And no, there is no "right" to secede. We scrapped the original loose
federation model for a single nation model (lots of history books on
that battle). The notion of states being these autonomous entities is
simply incorrect. Our constitution provides for a central government
that regulates many things; those things that the Constitution does
not assign to the national government are left for the states to
manage separately. But like any nation, we do not "allow" groups to
just declare themselves as independent and form their own nations. It
is not an anarchist model.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
