Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[paperview]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

It's pretty astounding stat that some Southern states had a majority slave population.


More slaves than free.

 

[Skylar]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

Oh, it's dissolving alright.

Smiling.....this secessionist nonsense may be the batshit dejour among fringe conservatives. But among the overwhelming majority of Americans, not so much.

 

[Bombur]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

The only thing I would add is when one's country is being invaded by a hostile force, it doesn't take much convincing.

Both sides did a lot to provoke the other side.

 

[paperview]

In EVERY state, the South seceded because it feared for the institution of slavery. Some say that poor whites were fooled by the elites who owned most of the slaves, which btw were the biggest single asset in the US at the time, but I don't buy that. The poor whites feared hordes of free blacks swarming the countryside.

The North, however, did not invade the South over slaves. It invaded to prevent secession from succeeding.

"Poor whites" weren't duped, they heard an invading army was approaching and took to arms. I would have done the same if Obama was marching an army on Idaho, I don't care what the issues were.

Most people aren't that intelligent or politically sophisticated. Their passions and loyalties follow simple codes. Men in Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians before anything else and would fight to defend Virginia. The Left's ignorant hypothesis that thousands of white Southerners marched to defend slavery is stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

I think it is safe to say that appeals to nationalism and safety are part of many wars. Especially when it comes to getting the common folk to support it.

Common folk usually don't start wars. They just die in them.

The only thing I would add is when one's country is being invaded by a hostile force, it doesn't take much convincing.

Except, secession preceded the North's invasion.

Hell, hostilities, Acts of War, and firing on Union property with cannons commenced before Lincoln ever stepped into the White House.

Some states hadn't even seceded before committing Acts of War.

 

[Syriusly]

You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.

Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.

We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.

Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.

Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..

Really?

They had 'no idea'? what would happen when they decided to fire on American troops?

Wow- you are making them out to be even stupider than I thought they were.

A number of scenarios were possible. For all the knew, Lincoln was all bluster and empty threats and might just slink away and do nothing. Your believe that what happened was the only plausible outcome is the result of certainty aided by 20/20 hindsight.

Like I said- you portray them as even stupider than I thought.

They were 1000 times smarter than you. You're an obvious moron. Being queer must cause brain damage.

Having a tiny dick clearly is the reason for your extreme frustration.

 

[Syriusly]

Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. .

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

 

[Syriusly]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too ******* stupid to get the point.

that goes without saying, he/she/it is a liberal. Liberalism is a mental disease.

Says the poster whose record is one of perpetual lies.

 

[Syriusly]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, .

Sure it was.

Secession was primarily about the Confederate States protecting 'the right to own slaves'.

The North certainly did not enter the war to end slavery- but the South started the war with the misguided ideal of protecting slavery.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. .

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

 

[bendog]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

It's pretty astounding stat that some Southern states had a majority slave population.


More slaves than free.

NPR had a piece on a new book about
The True Story Of A British Secret Agent In The Civil War South WBHM 90.3
Seems like an interesting book, but only marginally relevant to the discussion. In 1860, slaves value had appreciated because there was a ban on the slave trade from Africa, and southerners were actually smuggling in slaves. The South was apparently certain that Britain would recognize them as a nation, and continue buying cotton ... and help end the Northern blockade. In the "story" of the Civil War, there's a focus on Lee needing to win a battle in the North to encourage the Brits to recognize them. But, the book argues that while Britain was OK with American Slavery, they were NOT ok with renewing a slave trade ... and the horror of that genocide. And, the fear that the South would again engage in the slave trade was one reason they did not recognize the South.

When someone says secession wasn't about slavery, they're either lying or wrong and most likely both.

 

[Syriusly]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Slavery was all the Civil War was about. You take slavery out of the equation and there could not possibly have been a mass secession leading to a civil war.

Bullshit. Take Lincoln out of the equation and there would have been no war. Somebody did manage to pump some lead into that melon but far too late.

Take Lincoln out of the mix- and there would have been no secession.

The secession was primarily about the right to own human property- i.e. slavery.

The Confederate states seceded over the election of Lincoln- believing that he and the Republican Congress would prevent the expansion of slavery into the Western states, resulting eventually in a Senate that was a majority abolitionist, which would threaten the property interests of the slave owning states.

No secession- no war.

 

[Syriusly]

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. .

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

The garrison commander was given warning to leave peacefully. He chose to stay and die even though he knew he had no functioning warheads to fire back.

That's called suicide.

And? None of that is a response to my post.

And who said that the military installation no longer belonged to the United States? Why the people who fired upon them.

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

 

[paperview]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

It's pretty astounding stat that some Southern states had a majority slave population.


More slaves than free.

NPR had a piece on a new book about
The True Story Of A British Secret Agent In The Civil War South WBHM 90.3
Seems like an interesting book, but only marginally relevant to the discussion. In 1860, slaves value had appreciated because there was a ban on the slave trade from Africa, and southerners were actually smuggling in slaves. The South was apparently certain that Britain would recognize them as a nation, and continue buying cotton ... and help end the Northern blockade. In the "story" of the Civil War, there's a focus on Lee needing to win a battle in the North to encourage the Brits to recognize them. But, the book argues that while Britain was OK with American Slavery, they were NOT ok with renewing a slave trade ... and the horror of that genocide. And, the fear that the South would again engage in the slave trade was one reason they did not recognize the South.

When someone says secession wasn't about slavery, they're either lying or wrong and most likely both.

Thank you.

Fully agree on your last point.

On the importation of slaves in 1860, it really wasn't much of an issue.

We were literally breeding them here, and no need to import what you can "make" cheaper here at home.

 

[paperview]

Take Lincoln out of the mix- and there would have been no secession.
...

I would clarify that by saying -- take a Republican as president out of the mix - and there would have been no secession.

Go back a few more years, to the the presidential race of 1856. The first time ever a Republican was on the ballot: John C. Fremont. Slavery was a Yoooooge issue. All consuming.

Fremont was against the expansion of slavery, and of course was despised in the South.

Here is a campaign ribbon from 1856:

Here is an 1856 anti-Fremont ribbon:

(Heh. What do you think they were trying to impress there?)

The South threatened at that time, if an anti-slavery President was elected - it would mean Civil War and "the Conservative South (soon) will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com | 1856

<snip> "The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "Conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

Now, how's this for traitorous:

As the 1856 election drew near, a convention of Governors of the Southern slave states was secretly held at Raleigh, North Carolina. Jefferson Davis -- then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, was full aware of this.

The object was to devise a scheme of rebellion at that time, in the event of the election of Colonel John C. Fremont, the Republican candidate for the Presidency.


Henry Wise, Governor of Virginia at the time ...afterward boasted that, had Fremont been elected, he should have marched, at the head of twenty thousand men, to Washington, taken possession of the Capitol, and prevented the inauguration of the President elect.
Source: Pictorial history of the Civil War in the United States of America - Lossing, 1866

Well, as we know, Buchanan was elected, and that staved off the fury for a few more years.

And get this: James Mason of Virginia, who was the leading Senator, wrote to US Sec. of War, Jeff Davis, later Confederate President, directly requesting him to arm the Southern states for war against the US -- a four full years before -- in any event a Republican would become President.

This was the letter

"I have a letter from WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear.

He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. … Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."

As I said earlier, had Fremont been elected, the date of the start of the Civil War would have likely been 1856.

 

[bendog]

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

the civil war was not about slavery, no matter what your liberal teachers union "teachers" may have told you. But you are free to believe whatever you choose, until such time as your government fully implements thought control and punishment for non-conforming thinking.

we are moving in that direction with the "hate crime" bullshit. Like somehow its worse if you murder someone because of his race than to steal his money. This is orwellian lunacy.

Slavery was all the Civil War was about. You take slavery out of the equation and there could not possibly have been a mass secession leading to a civil war.

Bullshit. Take Lincoln out of the equation and there would have been no war. Somebody did manage to pump some lead into that melon but far too late.

Take Lincoln out of the mix- and there would have been no secession.

The secession was primarily about the right to own human property- i.e. slavery.

The Confederate states seceded over the election of Lincoln- believing that he and the Republican Congress would prevent the expansion of slavery into the Western states, resulting eventually in a Senate that was a majority abolitionist, which would threaten the property interests of the slave owning states.

No secession- no war.

Even without Lincoln, the political will was to limit slavery to what became the confederacy. The South knew it. The previous president was Buchanan, who was a northern democrat and not hostile to southern slavery, but he was against extending slavery to new states. Once the South ceased having an equal number of senators to Non-slave states, they had no protection for slavery beyond the simple benevolence of the Non-slave states to allow it to exist.

Perhaps there was a political solution that would have guaranteed the South a right to keep slaves. But none was found.

Lincoln's importance was not that he was the first Republican potus. Even if he'd never existed, someone would have fit that role. What is amazing is that he was the guy, and his bedrock principle was that secession could not be allowed. He would never accept that. But he compromised everything else for that goal. And he was possibly the greatest human being in terms of empathy and moral integrity of all the potuses. And that's why neo-confederates vilify him even 150 years after his death.

 

[nuhuh]

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

If Texas seceded:

Texas residents receive about 350 million a year in SS payments. Those would be stopped.

Texas residents receive about 3.3 billion a year in Medicare benefits. Those would be stopped.

Texas has almost 200,000 residents employed in either active duty or civilian military jobs. Those jobs would disappear,

not to mention the jobs that would disappear upon the termination of all defense contracts with Texas industry.

All legal trade with Texas would end. All businesses in Texas relying on exporting to the other states would lose that business. A blockade of the Gulf Coast would end Texas's foreign trade.

Need I go on?

If Texas seceded:

Texas would stop paying into the U.S. S.S. black hole. That money could be used to cover the costs of current obligations.

Texas would stop paying into the U.S Medicare black hole. Same as above.

Texas would then form it's own military which it would finance from the federal taxes its citizens would no longer be paying. They would be importing labor like crazy.

Texas has a good amount of refining capacity and chemical capacity. If the U.S. ended trade with them, the U.S. economy would tank.

Texas has the one of the largest populations in the country...about 8% of the country. I am sure the left would go to war with them.

What's worse is that you can bet that if Texas left, Louisiana, Alabama & Missisippi would go too. Whoops there just went a whole lot more refining capacity. The U.S. oil industry would collapse.

You don't think that states like Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, & Others would not support Texas. Half the country would wish them the best and think about it themselves.

You can go on all you want.....it's doubtful your foot could fit farther into your mouth.

I am not for secession. It would be a disaster.

But sillyness like this is what really kills good discussion.

Sillyness is thinking that the United States is going to standby and let a state do any of that. Texas will be bombed into submission at the git go, bomb the refineries, bomb dams, electrical generation, ports and just like Iraq they would fall into chaos and the next two generations would be taken up by rebuilding their society and running down those responsible.
The best pipedream of all is thinking that something like secession is even remotely possible, there are hundreds of ways to make people submit, taking away their water, electricity, television and little league is going to be the slap that wakes them up. Sure there will be many people pissed off but with no food, gas, or roads to move on the idea will die pretty quickly.
So there you, go minimal casualties but a dead infrastructure. Sure people will be pissed off but there isn't much they can do about it. Unlike the Iraqi's, the repairs to the infrastructure must come from within, no aid. If they do get angry enough to cross borders 600,000 dead will be like nothing.

 

[bendog]

...only about 2% of southernors were slave owners.

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

It's pretty astounding stat that some Southern states had a majority slave population.


More slaves than free.

NPR had a piece on a new book about
The True Story Of A British Secret Agent In The Civil War South WBHM 90.3
Seems like an interesting book, but only marginally relevant to the discussion. In 1860, slaves value had appreciated because there was a ban on the slave trade from Africa, and southerners were actually smuggling in slaves. The South was apparently certain that Britain would recognize them as a nation, and continue buying cotton ... and help end the Northern blockade. In the "story" of the Civil War, there's a focus on Lee needing to win a battle in the North to encourage the Brits to recognize them. But, the book argues that while Britain was OK with American Slavery, they were NOT ok with renewing a slave trade ... and the horror of that genocide. And, the fear that the South would again engage in the slave trade was one reason they did not recognize the South.

When someone says secession wasn't about slavery, they're either lying or wrong and most likely both.

Thank you.

Fully agree on your last point.

On the importation of slaves in 1860, it really wasn't much of an issue.

We were literally breeding them here, and no need to import what you can "make" cheaper here at home.

I dunno. I always assumed there was no demand in the South for more slaves than the slaveholders could breed. I know I read that SC still had a huge % of pop as slaves because they were useful in rice farming, and that was what caused Texans to buy theirs. Mississippi in turn imported slaves from more eastern states for the cotton farming. Basically, there was something of a "forced migration" of them from east to west. But the book apparently states demand exceeded supply. And there certainly was a value appreciation of them. It may have been a classic bubble market. "Oh John, let's buy one, and we can sell him in a year for ten cows." I dunno. I look forward to the book.

 

[bendog]

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

If Texas seceded:

Texas residents receive about 350 million a year in SS payments. Those would be stopped.

Texas residents receive about 3.3 billion a year in Medicare benefits. Those would be stopped.

Texas has almost 200,000 residents employed in either active duty or civilian military jobs. Those jobs would disappear,

not to mention the jobs that would disappear upon the termination of all defense contracts with Texas industry.

All legal trade with Texas would end. All businesses in Texas relying on exporting to the other states would lose that business. A blockade of the Gulf Coast would end Texas's foreign trade.

Need I go on?

If Texas seceded:

Texas would stop paying into the U.S. S.S. black hole. That money could be used to cover the costs of current obligations.

Texas would stop paying into the U.S Medicare black hole. Same as above.

Texas would then form it's own military which it would finance from the federal taxes its citizens would no longer be paying. They would be importing labor like crazy.

Texas has a good amount of refining capacity and chemical capacity. If the U.S. ended trade with them, the U.S. economy would tank.

Texas has the one of the largest populations in the country...about 8% of the country. I am sure the left would go to war with them.

What's worse is that you can bet that if Texas left, Louisiana, Alabama & Missisippi would go too. Whoops there just went a whole lot more refining capacity. The U.S. oil industry would collapse.

You don't think that states like Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, & Others would not support Texas. Half the country would wish them the best and think about it themselves.

You can go on all you want.....it's doubtful your foot could fit farther into your mouth.

I am not for secession. It would be a disaster.

But sillyness like this is what really kills good discussion.

Sillyness is thinking that the United States is going to standby and let a state do any of that. Texas will be bombed into submission at the git go, bomb the refineries, bomb dams, electrical generation, ports and just like Iraq they would fall into chaos and the next two generations would be taken up by rebuilding their society and running down those responsible.
The best pipedream of all is thinking that something like secession is even remotely possible, there are hundreds of ways to make people submit, taking away their water, electricity, television and little league is going to be the slap that wakes them up. Sure there will be many people pissed off but with no food, gas, or roads to move on the idea will die pretty quickly.
So there you, go minimal casualties but a dead infrastructure. Sure people will be pissed off but there isn't much they can do about it. Like the Iraqi's, the repairs to the infrastructure must come from within, no aid. If they do get angry enough to cross borders 600,000 dead will be like nothing.

JADE HELM THEIR TRAITOR BUTTS!!! (-:

 

[Skylar]

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

If Texas seceded:

Texas residents receive about 350 million a year in SS payments. Those would be stopped.

Texas residents receive about 3.3 billion a year in Medicare benefits. Those would be stopped.

Texas has almost 200,000 residents employed in either active duty or civilian military jobs. Those jobs would disappear,

not to mention the jobs that would disappear upon the termination of all defense contracts with Texas industry.

All legal trade with Texas would end. All businesses in Texas relying on exporting to the other states would lose that business. A blockade of the Gulf Coast would end Texas's foreign trade.

Need I go on?

If Texas seceded:

Texas would stop paying into the U.S. S.S. black hole. That money could be used to cover the costs of current obligations.

Texas would stop paying into the U.S Medicare black hole. Same as above.

Texas would then form it's own military which it would finance from the federal taxes its citizens would no longer be paying. They would be importing labor like crazy.

Texas has a good amount of refining capacity and chemical capacity. If the U.S. ended trade with them, the U.S. economy would tank.

Texas has the one of the largest populations in the country...about 8% of the country. I am sure the left would go to war with them.

What's worse is that you can bet that if Texas left, Louisiana, Alabama & Missisippi would go too. Whoops there just went a whole lot more refining capacity. The U.S. oil industry would collapse.

You don't think that states like Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, & Others would not support Texas. Half the country would wish them the best and think about it themselves.

You can go on all you want.....it's doubtful your foot could fit farther into your mouth.

I am not for secession. It would be a disaster.

But sillyness like this is what really kills good discussion.

Sillyness is thinking that the United States is going to standby and let a state do any of that. Texas will be bombed into submission at the git go, bomb the refineries, bomb dams, electrical generation, ports and just like Iraq they would fall into chaos and the next two generations would be taken up by rebuilding their society and running down those responsible.
The best pipedream of all is thinking that something like secession is even remotely possible, there are hundreds of ways to make people submit, taking away their water, electricity, television and little league is going to be the slap that wakes them up. Sure there will be many people pissed off but with no food, gas, or roads to move on the idea will die pretty quickly.
So there you, go minimal casualties but a dead infrastructure. Sure people will be pissed off but there isn't much they can do about it. Like the Iraqi's, the repairs to the infrastructure must come from within, no aid. If they do get angry enough to cross borders 600,000 dead will be like nothing.

JADE HELM THEIR TRAITOR BUTTS!!! (-:

"Leeeeeeeeeeeeeroy Jenkins!

 

[paperview]

Nearly one third of Southern families owned a slave/slaves.

For perspective, there were nearly 4 million slaves in 1861.

There were just over a million households in the South.

correct. And overall, slaves were about 1/3 of the South's population. They were illiterate by law, and direct economic threat to poor white subsistence farmers. The whites had no interest in ending slavery, whether or not they owned any slaves.
Untitled Document

It's pretty astounding stat that some Southern states had a majority slave population.


More slaves than free.

NPR had a piece on a new book about
The True Story Of A British Secret Agent In The Civil War South WBHM 90.3
Seems like an interesting book, but only marginally relevant to the discussion. In 1860, slaves value had appreciated because there was a ban on the slave trade from Africa, and southerners were actually smuggling in slaves. The South was apparently certain that Britain would recognize them as a nation, and continue buying cotton ... and help end the Northern blockade. In the "story" of the Civil War, there's a focus on Lee needing to win a battle in the North to encourage the Brits to recognize them. But, the book argues that while Britain was OK with American Slavery, they were NOT ok with renewing a slave trade ... and the horror of that genocide. And, the fear that the South would again engage in the slave trade was one reason they did not recognize the South.

When someone says secession wasn't about slavery, they're either lying or wrong and most likely both.

Thank you.

Fully agree on your last point.

On the importation of slaves in 1860, it really wasn't much of an issue.

We were literally breeding them here, and no need to import what you can "make" cheaper here at home.

I dunno. I always assumed there was no demand in the South for more slaves than the slaveholders could breed. I know I read that SC still had a huge % of pop as slaves because they were useful in rice farming, and that was what caused Texans to buy theirs. Mississippi in turn imported slaves from more eastern states for the cotton farming. Basically, there was something of a "forced migration" of them from east to west. But the book apparently states demand exceeded supply. And there certainly was a value appreciation of them. It may have been a classic bubble market. "Oh John, let's buy one, and we can sell him in a year for ten cows." I dunno. I look forward to the book.

There were some who may have been interested in reopening the international slave trade, but where slavery was abundant, states that had majority or near majority slave populations (some counties in Mississippi, for example, put the number of slaves at a whopping 92% of its people!) and the slave exporters were against any such talk because it would depress prices.

Note also, when the Confeds wrote their Constitution, they banned the int. slave trade.

Here's another fun fact -- in that Constitution: they kept the 3/5ths clause.