Is States Secession in the Future for USA???

[Orange_Juice]

Let us also not forget that Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution to make slavery a permanent fixture in the states where it existed, and this would have ironically been the 13th Amendment had it happened.

Lincoln didn't "support" that 13th amendment, he merely stated he couldn't stop it if it was passed, as the President has no constitutional authority to do anything with amendments. His 1865 amendment he gave lots of political support to, something he didn't do with the 1860 amendment.


Funny you don't want to talk about Kansas? The South trying to undemocratically attach a slave state?

 

[glockmail]

Priceless!


I think Venezuela will take over Texas; Cuba will invade and conquer Florida....

Cuba has no Navy and couldn't take over Haiti if it wanted. Texas will defend itself; Chavez wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[glockmail]

Aaahh glock.... that's what happening now...

That's why its so plausible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Before any of that happens REX 84 will executed.

If it takes military action to "preserve" the union, then there will be no union to preserve.

What is 'REX 84', bro'?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Oh, and if we WERE to rise up against the government to clean house, that wouldn't exactly be secession.

If you assume that a successful deposition of the US government by the American people would result in a new central US government you are naive. The people of the west are not going to give in to the compromise required by their brothers in the northeast any more than the people of the south would.

Assuming a successful deposition of power in DC, the union would break up into several sovereign regions of like minded people with similar living conditions. I for one would welcome such an event, but the key - successful deposition of power in DC is not going to happen without a sever change in the standard of living everyone is accustomed to.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

... Were the New England states "traitors to the flag" when they formed a convention to decide whether they should or should not secede in 1814? Were the founding fathers "traitors to the flag" of Britain because they decided that it would be in their best interest to have their own government?

From the point of view of those loyal to the crown...? Yes.

One mans terrorist is another mans patriotic hero.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think the Declaration of Independence gives all states the right to secede.

In fact, I think the south had that right and the north stepped all over them.

You're right, it will take a successful armed rebellion, and that's why our forefathers gave us the 2nd amendment.

You've taken some shit for this view in this thread, but I think you're right. The south got screwed, and slavery would have most likely ended fairly soon on its own anyway.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

You think this is about LAW?

LAW is simply power one step removed from the boot on your neck, dude.

LAW is the threat of a boot on yuour neck.

LAW is cheaper than power, because it can have the same effect as power without having to expend that power.

In chess this phenomena of the relation of LAW to power is described thusly:

The THREAT is more powerful than the execution.​

Isn't the law supposed to be the rules we live by? I understand your post and I relate to why it is a relevant thesis, but your chess analogy is application of law in an adversarial relationship.

In the opinion of this average Joe, there is room for the rule of law in simple rules for harmonious communal living.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

and starts the war...right! Again, try to leave. Lets see what happens. Doesn't the consequence of an act predicate the legality of an act? Further, since the consequence would be the same irrespective of the time period can't we conclude de-facto rule of law?

Your assertion is that by choosing to ignore rule of law that rule of law no longer exists. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way...

There is a certain amount of 'legality' in successfully pulling something off. In the eyes of King George, the Declaration of Independence was an illegal act. The successful repelling of British troops, sent to back up Georgie Boy's legal thoughts on the matter deemed it otherwise.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. – Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. – Noah Webster

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. – James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson

Resistance to tyranny is service to God. – James Madison

The United States Constitution of modern times is nothing more than a paper bridge between good intentions and inevitable fallacy. - WhiteLion

This is all the justification that the hemp smokers of USMB need...

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not even Texas has a chance. The problem being logistical...no port to the open sea.

The Yucatan Peninsula and Florida hem the Texas and Louisiana ports in...you would need the whole south including Florida...and that isn't going to happen without the Republic of Texas Department of Social Security and Medicare up and running. And I don't think they will except "Redbacks".

Texas: First task after the Declaration of Texas Independence is to invade Cuba. Florida will be the first to ask if they can join your union.

Problem solved.

-Joe

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your "logic" because you are interpreting in a totally jack-ass manner what they thought. You are arguing what you would wanted them to think. They knew the war was about slavery, they knew about John Brown, they knew about Kansas, no matter how much you may want them not to have known.

Firing on Fort Sumter was peaceful??? You really are a piece of work!

The war was not about slavery. The war was to force the southern states back into the union so that they could pay Lincoln's exorbitant tariffs that benefitted the northern states.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." - Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln made it so the south had no other option but to fire on Fort Sumter. He wanted to make the south appear as the aggressor because he knew that he'd otherwise have little support for his war, because most people in the Union viewed secession as perfectly legal at the time. Jefferson Davis sent delegates to Washington to offer to pay for all the federal property in the south, and the south's portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to talk with them at all.

The south was willing to wait for Fort Sumter to run out of supplies and then be abandoned by the Union troops. Why would the Confederates want a Union base within their borders? Lincoln, knowing the south would have no choice but to respond, sent ships in to resupply the base. No troops were killed by the Confederates, and all of them were returned to the Union unharmed.

Lincoln didn't "support" that 13th amendment, he merely stated he couldn't stop it if it was passed, as the President has no constitutional authority to do anything with amendments. His 1865 amendment he gave lots of political support to, something he didn't do with the 1860 amendment.

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln also sent a letter to all the governors of the states urging them to support the proposed amendment.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So, in your opinion, the colonies committed an illegal act when they seceded from Great Britain? I mean, they obviously knew that King George wasn't exactly going to let them go without a fight, so since they knew it would lead to war it was illegal?

The Revolutionary War was a consequence of the colonies declaring independence, or seceding, from Great Britain. Therefore, if we use your logic, it was illegal for the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain.

Of course it was illegal, that's why Jefferson spent so much time in the Declaration justifying the actions of the colonists. To do that he turned to natural law. "All men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (which means that any government attempts to take those rights must be void because God says so and God trumps King, so there!) that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." (Sorry if I screwed up the quote it was from memory.)

But, as I noted earlier, if you win, it doesn't much matter if it was "legal" because you get to right the history. It's only surprising that we didn't make George III into Richard III, although we have made him look bad enough.

 

[seth1492]

It's not going to happen, things might get messed up, and states will get riled up, but there wont be a secession. The states know that they could not do without the Feds...

 

[Red Dawn]

secession is treason, pure and simple.

If you don't like the federal government, work your ass off to change it using the democratic institutions that millions of americans died to establish.

Don't leave the country crying like little girls and then arm yourself to the teeth for the inevitable conflict.

 

[glockmail]

secession is treason, pure and simple.

If you don't like the federal government, work your ass off to change it using the democratic institutions that millions of americans died to establish.

Don't leave the country crying like little girls and then arm yourself to the teeth for the inevitable conflict.

How sexist. I would argue that the public education system has failed, creating a society loathing hard work and looking for the next hand out. 40% of voters pay no federal income taxes, and together with millions of government employees make up a majority that are intent on taxing high earners for their own benefit. The system is broken to the point where demolition may be required as a first step to get it back to its former glory.

 

[DiveCon]

secession is treason, pure and simple.

If you don't like the federal government, work your ass off to change it using the democratic institutions that millions of americans died to establish.

Don't leave the country crying like little girls and then arm yourself to the teeth for the inevitable conflict.

gee, did you say this when this image came out 4 years ago?

 

[frazzledgear]

Is States Succession in the Future for USA??? One Russian Scholar seems to think so? Read the link below, all opinions are welcome...
FOXNews.com - Russian Scholar Predicts Economic Crisis Will Rip America Apart - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
Its my personal opinion, if it did happen, that the southern states could not survive it without Texas and Mississippi. From what i understand, Meridian MS is where the Navy Aircraft carrier pilots are trained and Vicksburg MS is the local of one of 5 supercomputers in the USA, and Texas is virtually a sovereign country with alot of oil and gasoline???

No doubt there are more than a few countries that would just LOVE to see this happen because a powerhouse divided is power diluted -but it won't happen. Unlike so many other countries, ours is not "balkanized". We don't have entire regions of the country inhabited by primarily one ethnic group or race who speak a totally different language, are being treated differently or ruled more harshly by the federal government or prevented by federal government from full participation in the political arena because of their ethnicity or based on how their particular state joined the Union. Government hasn't doled out "rights" according to state, region or ethnicity.

Our states did not come into the Union in a violent manner whose residents were a conquered people. None were forced into the Union because of the military invasion of another small, once totally independent country with its own government, conquering it and then immediately claiming it for our own, declaring the citizens of that country as our own against their will - and then forbidding the speaking of their own language or teaching of their own history, etc. -as the Soviet Union once did (and as Russia has designs to do again). And as quite a few other nations did. Even when war resulted in the acquisition of more land -as in the southwest -they were not made states until the residents of that state overwhelmingly approved petitioning the federal government for statehood. We don't have a nation divided into regions by ethnicity at all, much less one with a long history of ethnic rivalry and violence.

Because our population is highly mobile -families and individuals cut across all state borders with any one family having lived in more than one state or entire region of the country. Unlike many other countries, there is no language barrier for Americans who want to travel or move to any other state. There are no border guards at any state to check papers of those entering and leaving, making people feel like they are leaving or entering a different country. People identify much less strongly and have less deep roots with a particular state than was true in the past.

I was born in Missouri and spent half my life there but that sure as heck doesn't mean I think I somehow have a greater "claim" to the state of Missouri over all other Americans who weren't born there. Or that Missouri is somehow so much more "special" than any of the other 49 that it actually has a "right" to just leave the Union if it is unhappy with federal government. Our system is set up so that every state has the identical ability to have its grievances addressed. The handful of secessionist fruitcakes who exist in some states -aren't anything close to the majority, nowhere close to representing even the majority opinion and none are in a position of authority in state government that could even pretend to legitimately declare its secession from the Union.

I still have a sibling who still lives in Missouri -but I also have siblings who live in California, N. Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. And THEIR children live in still other states from Colorado to Florida. None of them feel strong roots to any state now with so much moving due to changing education and employment opportunities over their lifetimes, none view the state they were born in or reside in as a "nation" unto itself, nor would they believe the state they happen to reside in right now (and might be a different one in a few years yet again) -would have a "right" to just decide to up and secede from the Union. That kind of "family scattering" was unusual prior to the Civil War and people then identified MUCH more strongly with their home state and had much deeper, permanent roots to it. In addition, state's rights were far greater prior to the Civil War -with states exercising those rights much as a little independent nation. Our Constitution was originally set up so that federal government respected individual states almost as if they were little "nations" unto themselves. Prior to the Civil War, people would say "The United States are....." which emphasized the independent nature of the states. But after the war, people said "The United States is..." emphasizing the fact it was actually one nation and not a federation of independent little nations that just shared the same flag. The perception of all Americans with regard to states versus nation itself - made a major shift after the Civil War. People no longer saw themselves as Virginians or Georgians etc. first -and then as an American. People all see themselves as Americans first and many people don't identify with their own state except on a superficial level today.

Without that belief among the majority of residents of one state that their own particular state is somehow more "special" than all others and a "nation" unto itself; without a population with intense, permanent and deep roots to just one state instead of a population that is highly mobile and frequently moving to different states - secession is just not possible regardless of economic conditions and so unlikely to ever happen again as to be nothing more than this Russian's pipedream.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Our states did not come into the Union in a violent manner whose residents were a conquered people. None were forced into the Union because of the military invasion of another small, once totally independent country with its own government, conquering it and then immediately claiming it for our own, declaring the citizens of that country as our own against their will

Well there was the Civil War which resulted in everything you just said happening to the south.

There was also the fact that the states were once considered independent and sovereign. King George didn't sign a peace treaty with some national government, he signed a peace treaty with 13 independent states. Which means they actually were independent countries.

 

[frazzledgear]

I posted this article earlier,,, I didn't think it was talking about secession.. I was thinking more along the lines of how the US would be divided up between Russia China and Venezuela,,

LOL -oh sure. What is it with communists and Russians who want to return to communism? They still haven't seen enough proof that communism is fit only for an ant colony and in practice only causes human misery on a massive scale - and their OWN collapse is guaranteed by a fatal flaw inherent in the system itself? But they STILL want to pretend they are still going to end up as the owners and rulers of the world? Only in their dreams.