Quote:
Originally Posted by UofM-TKE
Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again
|
Wow. Taking this too seriously much? People can't disagree and discuss?
But if you want to be informed that you are in error . . .
Quote:
|
Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801. . . .
|
The United Kingdom of Great Britain (England/Wales and Scotland) came into existence with the Acts of Union, effective May 1, 1707. They had, of course, shared a monarch (personal union) since the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England in 1603, but the Acts of Union created political union, with a single parliament, between the two kingdoms. England and Scotland (and Wales), nevertheless remain separate countries, despite being one state. The
second Act of Union in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
While Great Britain and the United Kingdom can be used interchangeably for that period of time (1707-1801), and while Great Britain (or just Britain or even England) was certainly the more commonly used term, my use of UK was deliberate. I was
only talking about how SC's independence from the UK differed fundamentally, in my view, from SC secession from the United States, and whether special pleading was going on. It related directly and pretty much only to the fact that SC was a colony and not a constiuent entity of the UK.
As I see it, the special pleading would arise if we recognize the thirteen colonies' natural right to independence but refuse independence to, say, Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa. South Carolina as a state of the United States is, on the other hand, comparable to England or Scotland, whose parliaments entered into the Union, wishing to unilaterally withdraw from the United Kingdom. (Ireland, as you suggest, and Wales are perhaps a bit stickier historically.)
While you think that distinction is irrelevant from a human rights/self-determination point of view, I think it is relevant from a logic point of view. It could, I suppose, be framed a different way: Does a state relinquish some future right to self-determination when it exercises its right to self-determination by choosing to voluntarily enter into union with other states, as SC did by ratifying the Constitution? When it has done so, it has cast its lot with those other states and created some interdependence; must the rights of those other states also be taken into account if one state wishes to withdraw?
That's the extent of my point. Not that big a deal really, and certainly off topic.
Threaded Mode
