answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Breaking any union intended to be a permanent commitment would not be something to be taken lightly, or something to be done because of only a few issues where all parties don't see eye to eye. Or because one party may get benefits for now, as things have a tenedency to balance over time. If by secedeing one means becoming independent, that would entail a number of things that probably can't be achieved under any cirumstances. And, if it were to be done fairly, wouldn't it need to consider compensating the States remaining in the union for any benefits the others had received or took with them? Certainly, the seceders must take on lots of obligations that were entered into on their behalf when they were a part of the union. All things probably financially, socially and logistically virtually impossible. Also, I'm not sure that the right to secede doesn't exist. But, that doesn't mean others would have to accept it. That is key, because while seceding or declaring independence is one thing, being considered so by others is really what establishes it. In fact, for about as long as there have been rules governing inter-governmental relations, being acknowledged as the government of a country is what actually establishes one as such. For example: the seceding Confederate states of the US were never acknowleged by any government anywhere else. An important reason for their failure. France, Spain and even England (which the US had recent wars with and by no means was particuarly supportive), the real players if you will, refused to acknolwge the Confederacy, (meaning things like they wouldn't accept their crrancy, etc.). That was true even though the confederacy did many things, especially concerning trade of cotton which these countries desperately needed, to encourage them to do so. On the other hand, Isreal was recognized by several countries, the US very importantly, within hours of declaring it's independence. That is really what established its government as an entity.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What are arguments for and against secession?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Describe the arguments used to justify and oppose secession?

The arguments used to justify and oppose secession


What are Abraham Lincolns and Jefferson Davis's basic arguments against or in favor of secession?

Ha-ha I don't know.. listen to the teacher next time!


What does anti secession mean?

Anti-secession means against a seperation of the country. Anti means against, and secession means a seperation of the country. For example, the Union was anti-secession during the Civil War.


Why was West Virginia upset about secession?

Because most of population was against the secession.


Arguments against endangered species?

try doing some reseach on arguments against it then reverse it


What do States' rights including secession Equality of the sexes Abolition of slavery have in common?

They use the language of the Declaration of Independence in their arguments.


What are the major arguments against planning?

There are no real, good arguments against planning. Having a plan is important in many cases.


Arguments against economic integration world leader command?

Arguments against economic integration world leader command?


What are Arguments for against of voluntary work?

are you for or against voluntary work


What are the arguments for and against DNA evidence?

There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.


What are the arguments for and against celibacy?

Celibacy is abstinence from sex or sexual relations. There are arguments for it to protect people from unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and religious purity. There are arguments against it saying that it is restrictive and that it goes against following the laws of nature.


How do you use the word countervail in a sentence?

"The evidence for evolution countervails over the arguments against it." THis means that evidence for evolution counteracts the arguments against it.