Is States Secession in the Future for USA???

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As in vote them out of office? Isn't that how its done?

That would certainly be the ideal way of doing it, yes. But if it is in a state's best interest to leave the Union all together then they are certainly entitled to do so.

 

[Orange_Juice]

No, an unpopular attempt at secession is not going to happen. In 1814 the New England states held a convention to discuss whether they should secede, which they decided against.

If the south hadn't seceded the slaves' lives would not have improved at all. Lincoln stated many times that he did not support and did not feel that he had legal authority to end slavery in the states that it existed. I doubt very seriously that the slaves cared one way or the other. Now, maybe they would have been emancipated earlier if the south hadn't seceded, or maybe at the same time that they were. We can only guess. But they certainly had no reason to believe that they would be.

Wrong. Don't de-humanize the slaves. They ran away to the North for a reason. They fought in the war to kill southerners. They were Unionists pure and simple

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong. Don't de-humanize the slaves. They ran away to the North for a reason. They fought in the war to kill southerners. They were Unionists pure and simple

How did I "de-humanize" the slaves by stating that they would have had no reason to think they would be freed if the south hadn't seceded?

They certainly did run away to the north, where they were promptly abused, looked at as less than human, and many times returned to their masters in the south thanks to the Fugitive Slave Acts.

 

[Orange_Juice]

How did I "de-humanize" the slaves by stating that they would have had no reason to think they would be freed if the south hadn't seceded?

They certainly did run away to the north, where they were promptly abused, looked at as less than human, and many times returned to their masters in the south thanks to the Fugitive Slave Acts.

By saying they could care less about the greatest issue of their lives. They did care and their actions proved that.

As to being abused in the North, that happened yes, but they also found help on the underground RR, had people that fought for them, hid them and killed for them.

Still, my point still stands, Secession was not a popular revolt, especially in the State where it started, SC, which was majority black in 1860

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By saying they could care less about the greatest issue of their lives. They did care and their actions proved that.

As to being abused in the North, that happened yes, but they also found help on the underground RR, had people that fought for them, hid them and killed for them.

Still, my point still stands, Secession was not a popular revolt, especially in the State where it started, SC, which was majority black in 1860

The issue is secession, not slavery. I'm sure they cared very much that they were slaves. I don't see how the south seceding from the Union affected them, however. As I said, prior to the south seceding Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves. In fact, they should have been happy the south seceded because it is very likely they would not have been freed as soon as they were had Lincoln not needed a reason to free them. And let us also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states Lincoln had no authority over, whereas the slaves in the slave-states that remained with the Union were not freed.

 

[Orange_Juice]

The issue is secession, not slavery. I'm sure they cared very much that they were slaves. I don't see how the south seceding from the Union affected them, however. As I said, prior to the south seceding Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves. In fact, they should have been happy the south seceded because it is very likely they would not have been freed as soon as they were had Lincoln not needed a reason to free them. And let us also not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states Lincoln had no authority over, whereas the slaves in the slave-states that remained with the Union were not freed.

That's just wonderful, and if the slaves didn't follow your "logic" then what?

And least we forget, that Lincoln tried to buy and free all the slaves in the border states before issuing the EP and Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment freeing all the slaves.

But what's your point? You still trying to argue the South had a popular mandate to destroy the country?

I suppose the Lecompton Constitution enjoyed popular support in Kansas also?

The North went too easy on the South after the war

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's just wonderful, and if the slaves didn't follow your "logic" then what?

And least we forget, that Lincoln tried to buy and free all the slaves in the border states before issuing the EP and Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment freeing all the slaves.

But what's your point? You still trying to argue the South had a popular mandate to destroy the country?

I suppose the Lecompton Constitution enjoyed popular support in Kansas also?

The North went too easy on the South after the war

What do you mean if they didn't follow my logic? Why in the world would they have cared if the south seceded? They were slaves regardless, they would have still been able to run to the north for "freedom," and they were better off because the northern states no longer had to recognize the Fugitive Slave Acts.

How did the south destroy the country? They tried to peacefully leave the Union to form their own government that would protect their rights. The United States wasn't destroyed because the south left. In fact, Lincoln and his Republicans were able to push legislation through Congress that was previously blocked by the Southern Democrats.

Well the north basically established dictatorships in the south, so that's a ridiculous statement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And least we forget, that Lincoln tried to buy and free all the slaves in the border states before issuing the EP and Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment freeing all the slaves.

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.

 

[editec]

When Nevada elects to become an independent nation who owns the roughtly 85% of it which is Federal land?

the PEOPLE of the USA bought most of the land west of the Alleganies, so by what right do the inhabitants of the Western states now have to leave the union which bought (or stole) that land for the PEOPLE of the USA?

None, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When Nevada elects to become an independent nation who owns the roughtly 85% of it which is Federal land?

the PEOPLE of the USA bought most of the land west of the Alleganies, so by what right do the inhabitants of the Western states now have to leave the union which bought (or stole) that land for the PEOPLE of the USA?

None, in my opinion.

I don't think Nevada entered the Union assuming that the federal government owns them. When a territory becomes a state it is protected under the Constitution the same as any other state, and therefore the federal government gives up all claims of ownership over it.

 

[editec]

I don't think Nevada entered the Union assuming that the federal government owns them. When a territory becomes a state it is protected under the Constitution the same as any other state, and therefore the federal government gives up all claims of ownership over it.

Wrong.

The Federal government (the people of the United States of AMERICA) own 85% of the land in Nevada.

The people of the state of Nevada own collectively or privately, only 15% of that state.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong.

The Federal government (the people of the United States of AMERICA) own 85% of the land in Nevada.

The people of the state of Nevada own collectively or privately, only 15% of that state.

Much the same for Oregon. And we like it that way. Land that we all own, and can explore without trespassing, for it belongs to all of us.

 

[Missourian]

Wrong.

The Federal government (the people of the United States of AMERICA) own 85% of the land in Nevada.

The people of the state of Nevada own collectively or privately, only 15% of that state.

Well, I imagine the federal government could keep all the 85% they could carry back to Washington.


Or perhaps they would, as land owners, receive one vote in choosing the new Federal government.

.​

 

[Againsheila]

You do know the reason for this lack of petty crime right? The Yakuza in Japan is the primary force in containing petty crime, and keeping violence within their own ranks. They act almost as an alternative police force, when commiting crimes in Japan, you better have the blessings of the Yakuza, otherwise prison is the least of your worries.

Yes, I know about the Yakuza, but that's not why there isn't the petty crime there that there is here. The truth is that people teach their kids right and if your kids steals someone else's bike it brings shame on the family.

The Yakuza could care less if anyone steals a bicycle or commits vandalism or even robs a liquer store.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong.

The Federal government (the people of the United States of AMERICA) own 85% of the land in Nevada.

The people of the state of Nevada own collectively or privately, only 15% of that state.

So you believe the federal government owns Nevada?

 

[Neubarth]

I don't think Nevada entered the Union assuming that the federal government owns them. When a territory becomes a state it is protected under the Constitution the same as any other state, and therefore the federal government gives up all claims of ownership over it.

Kevin, your supposition does not make any sense. The Federal Government can do whatever it wants to the Federal Lands that it owns. State law does not supercede Federal Law. Period.

 

[WhiteLion]

So you believe the federal government owns Nevada?

No sir the collective tax payers of Navada and no one else.... However where the federal trap comes in, is with socialist free lunch programs, the state in question gets so bogged down in federal social puppet debt, that it has relatively 2 choices, keep on the slippery slope of the federal socialist handout octopus, or succeed??? So with that said the only real ties the state has to the union is its debt...Dont do it its a trap!!!

The debtor is prisoner of the lender.........

 

[bk1983]

Yes, I know about the Yakuza, but that's not why there isn't the petty crime there that there is here. The truth is that people teach their kids right and if your kids steals someone else's bike it brings shame on the family.

The Yakuza could care less if anyone steals a bicycle or commits vandalism or even robs a liquer store.

While crime rates in Japan are generally lower than in the West, organized crime is a much more serious problem. Yakuza organizations are involved in loan-sharking and drugs, but also have front companies through which they operate legitimate businesses. The Yakuza keep petty criminals in line, but Yakuza presence and influence in the corporate world and in politics leads to serious problems of corruption

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Until recently, the majority of yakuza income came from protection rackets in shopping, entertainment and red-light districts within their territory. This is mainly due to the reluctance of such businesses to seek help from the police. The Japanese police are also reluctant to interfere in internal matters in recognized communities such as shopping arcades, schools/universities, night districts and so on.

 

[editec]

Well, I imagine the federal government could keep all the 85% they could carry back to Washington.


Or perhaps they would, as land owners, receive one vote in choosing the new Federal government.

You're evading the issue at hand.

Are the citizens of the nation of Nevada prepared to pay the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, the people who own that land?

No?

Then I guess the nation of Nevada is going to be 15% as large as the former STATE of Nevada is, eh?

Because the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES collectively own that land, and therefore it will continue to be part of the United STates of America.

 

[Orange_Juice]

What do you mean if they didn't follow my logic? Why in the world would they have cared if the south seceded? They were slaves regardless, they would have still been able to run to the north for "freedom," and they were better off because the northern states no longer had to recognize the Fugitive Slave Acts.

How did the south destroy the country? They tried to peacefully leave the Union to form their own government that would protect their rights. The United States wasn't destroyed because the south left. In fact, Lincoln and his Republicans were able to push legislation through Congress that was previously blocked by the Southern Democrats.

Well the north basically established dictatorships in the south, so that's a ridiculous statement.

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!