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.
There are no real, good arguments against planning. Having a plan is important in many cases.
The arguments against declaring independence were that the declaration of independance would lead to war and the colonist would not be faithful
8===================D
Initially the North Carolinian Unionists supported the Union and argued against secession. However, their arguments depended on Lincoln not attacking the Confederate states. After the battle of Fort Sumter, North Carolina Unionists felt Lincoln had betrayed them by the attack.
Magi m
The arguments used to justify and oppose secession
Ha-ha I don't know.. listen to the teacher next time!
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.
Because most of population was against the secession.
try doing some reseach on arguments against it then reverse it
They use the language of the Declaration of Independence in their arguments.
There are no real, good arguments against planning. Having a plan is important in many cases.
Arguments against economic integration world leader command?
are you for or against voluntary work
There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.
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.
"The evidence for evolution countervails over the arguments against it." THis means that evidence for evolution counteracts the arguments against it.