My fellow Yankees and Rebels, If you can´t beat em join em... I have been following the most recent version of the most old debate with great interest and before I become mindless or listless, I would like to step out of my sideline role as moderator of the non-moderate for a moment and, with my "lingua" planted firmly on the lateral-side soft tissue surrounding my ingestion orifice, I would like to make a "Modest Proposal" (apologies to Jonathan Swift) There is in the question "Did the South have a legal right to secede from the United States?" a similarity to another more modern question "Did the United States have a legal right to attack Iraq?" Both of these questions point past the (hopefully) obvious fact no one is really trying answer the question in order to solve the problem. The result of those acts is irreversible in both cases -- we cannot un-secede the South any more than we can un-invade Iraq. Debating such faites acomplis (for my Francophone friends who have all but disappeared, I hope I got that plural right) isn´t really fruitful unless there is a purpose. Since it is inconceivable to think this debate is a well thought out monumental waste of time perpetrated on the rest of us by those who persist in prolonging it as a test of our will to stay subscribed, I prefer the much more positive view that the "legality of secession" debate has one of two much more understandable purposes: 1) To assuage the consciences of Northerners or Southerners who feel compelled to justify the acts of their forebears in order to be sure that the sin of being the cause of such a misery as the Civil War rests firmly in someone else´s gene pool and not theirs. 2) To lead up to a new act of secession being prepared for in the not too distant future by laying the groundwork debating with no quarter given in the same form and forum as our forebears did with unrepentant poison oozing from every word and any ability to see another´s viewpoint myopically subjugated to the construction of pithy, condescending, rebuttals. With all due respect to anyone who might be performing a self-flagellating act of contrition in the hope of redemption from his great grandfather´s original sin, I am going to make the assumption that it is not to assuage guilty consciences we are debating. This conclusion is based on the fact that to this practiced eye there isn´t any discernable guilt being admitted to by anyone whom we have had the honor to read over the last month or two. All that is left then is the possibility that we are getting ready for another test of strength and that this debate is only a prelude to a new act of secession. I would like to offer some history which might serve to illuminate the shadowy areas around the "legal" right of secession so that everyone might prepare himself for the possible outcomes to be expected from a new secession. Before 1776, the "right" of the colonies to secede from Britain was debated by enlightened men attempting to resolve the issue peacefully on both sides. These moderates were pushed to the sidelines when the Colonies in a rather surly unilateral act declared their independence from Britain invoking God, whom they had no doubt was on their side, and they added in some Deist philosophy about "inalienable rights" to cater to the less God-fearing. The British, although apparently worshiping the same God, decided that the Colonies had no right to secede and, in spite of all the "self evident truths" expounded, were not dissuaded from sending in the Army to resolve the issue. (ah, yes, the ultimate diplomatic gesture by those who are debating an issue without any desire to understand the other´s point of view) After their defeat the British soldiers and their embarrassed leaders sailed back to Britain and the debate continued although somewhat muted by the breadth of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1812, after thirty years or so had created some form of amnesia which blocked out British memory of Yorktown, Britain decided to attempt to quash the secession once again. God of course, as he is want to do, showed up on both sides, and once again it was determined, with some help from La Belle France and a few motley Pirates of the Caribbean, that the now-united States were physically capable of maintaining their secession from Britain. (by the way one of my son´s ancestors, the Caribbean Pirate, Roberto Cofresí, was in 1825, caught by the Americans and executed by the Spanish, so much for gratitude, but of course that is genealogy and is out of place in this discussion) The question of the "legality of the secession" of the 13 colonies is still debated, presumably, but not widely here where the winning side lives. The animosity engendered in 1776 and 1812 continued as Britain chose a pro-South stance in 1861 undoubtedly relying on the famous divide and conquer strategy which has served so well in India and Ireland. But, alas it was not to be. In 1865 after the fun was over the still United States began talking about taking over Canada to punish Britain, but the thought of so many Canadians in our country dissuaded them and they let her be. When the wild Irishmen of the Fenian Brotherhood attacked Canada in 1866 and 1870, the United States moved in and quashed the raids, preferring, it seems, to have Canadians as opposed to Irishmen on our borders. It remains to be seen if US entry in World War II to aid Britain, France´s lack of support for our invasion of Iraq, and a 5th consecutive American victory at the Tour De France shifts the focus of the debate over the "legality of secession" to France. It was not so simple for the defeated rebels in 1865 who were required to go back into their fields and live amongst those who had defeated them. Prior to the war in the Southern States the "law" was clearly interpreted "we can secede" and in the North the "law" was clearly interpreted "you can´t secede" but like so many things debated in the halls in Congress there was no clear legal answer only the various interpretations from the elected governmental officials and a kaleidoscope of opinions from the elected officials of the various states. As is the case in a republic, the more Neanderthal among the elected won´t negotiate or back down for fear of offending those who fund their elections and provide for their excursions into the more risque side of Washington life. In most of the Congressional debate before the Civil War, the Neanderthals, North and South, far outnumbered those who wanted to negotiate a settlement. Perhaps the proper test of whether a clearly defined law existed against secession might be the fact that Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee and a host of others who fought to secede lived out their lives pursuing different avenues of work after the defeat. A case could be made that secession was not illegal for a Southerner -- just dangerous to his health during its exercise and, if he was among the few who survived, unprofitable afterwards. After the initial jailing of Jefferson Davis no one apparently wanted to test whether the law did or did not allow secession and Jeff was allowed to go to Alabama to write his memoirs, unfortunately in those days the late night talk show circuit wasn´t available to him. At that time and in that place it was proved that although it was feasible to secede, with the scanty resources available to the CSA, it was not feasible to remain seceded and the Union was preserved. The fields were still moist with rivulets of commingled Southern and Northern blood as this newly preserved nation moved on to other tasks now that the question had been resolved. Now and then old soldiers of both sides gathered at reunions where old enemies grasped hands or embraced one another and talked of ancient battles, but in general the war was just an ugly blip in the history of the growing American empire. That was then. This is now...... Based on the premise that we are now getting set to meet once again upon the battlefield in a great war to see whether this nation so conceived and so dedicated to secession in 1776 and 1812, and so dedicated to union in 1865, can win again. Let us now go to my proposal: Instead of the legality of the 1861 secessions, I propose we begin debating the more important issues to be solved before we can begin the secession sequence again: 1. Who is to secede: the original CSA states or should more be added to balance the deck? a. If only the original states are involved should the soldiers born in the states which entered the United States after the war and who care not a tinker´s damn who was right or wrong, be allowed to withdraw to the sidelines and/or form a third disinterested country and join the European Union or the United Arab Emirates? b. If all the states are to participate should we should just run the Mason-Dixon line out to California and use square miles north or south as the determinant of whether any state which entered after 1861 would be secessionist or unionist? c. I haven´t run the line out to Hawaii, would that be a Southern or Northern state? -- or can Queen Lelani´s descendents reclaim the throne? d. Puerto Rico ceded by Spain in 1898 now may be faced with sending soldiers into another battle in which their rooster isn´t in the fight -which side do they fight on? -- or can they secede themselves and declare their independence too? 2. Should we have each state individually be rated in BCS type polls and let them fight it out one against one until a winner is declared. This could be a way of keeping the battle going on forever and we could use an NCAA type enforcement to sanction any state from competing whose power showed it capable of winning. 3. Should President Bush (TX) take over as President of the Confederacy leaving Dick Cheney (NE) in charge of the Union? Or if Cheney is disallowed (NE is a border state) would Colin Powell (NY) be president of the Union when George Bush opts south? Or will we have elections for a new Confederate President perhaps run by Katherine Harris and the Florida Elections Board? 4. How much time should we allow the Yankees to get out of the South? 5. How much time should we allow for the Confederates to get back into the South? 6. Would the actions taken in 4 and 5 above be sufficient to stop the new drive toward session? 7. Should nuclear weapons be allowed or biological warfare accepted? The virulence on both sides of the present debate seems to indicate a willingness to accept any form of barbarity as long as not one Yankee or one Rebel remains alive. 8. If it can be proven that the Southern states have weapons of mass destruction when they take over the Southern armories, should the Union make a preemptive strike before George Bush can establish his brother Jeb in charge of the Fedayeen-George and they gas the Cuban-Americans in Miami? 9. Will the anti-establishment paramilitary groups fight for the South or just shoot anyone who comes near them and move to Montana? 10. Can we take all of the genealogical data from NARA and place it in Salt Lake City and declare Utah a canton of Switzerland until the issue is decided so my great, great, grandchildren will have an easier road than I have had trying reconstruct my past? 11. Am I liable to the draft if I was born in New York left when I was a year old, lived twenty years in California and twenty more in Puerto Rico and the last ten years in Tennessee? -- and whose draft am I to be assigned to? -- and can I legally be coerced into this fight if I have no animosity towards either the Yankees or the Rebels -- only the debaters? 12. Do we have to wait until Iraq is a republic with its own pro-American Neanderthals in command so our troops can come home before secession commences? If so, it may be a while and I suggest a postponement of the above proposals for debate. Mike Ruddy Civil-War