Scotland Was Allowed To Vote On Secession. Why Can't The American States?

[skookerasbil]

The OP poses a compelling question!!!

Of course, I live in NewYorkistan with pornographic levels of love for central authority. No hope for me......I gotta move.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Steve, as long as you live in an area with very dense population, that is the way it is going to be. Your freedom only extends to where the next persons feet begin. Now if you want real freedom, move to an area like Eastern Oregon. Low population, and very tolerant of differances. Provided you are tolerant of them.

 

[Discombobulated]

Works both ways. The President is practicing asymmetrical warfare against ISIS right now. He is fighting them in ways that gives them little wiggle room. And were idiots like you to try a guerrilla war here in the US, there are many of us that would aid in taking you out. You cannot hide in a population that is largely hostile to you.

Your assumption that the population would be "largely hostile" isn't true, and I seriously doubt the president is going to launch airstrikes against American cities. You can't "take anyone out" if you don't know who they are. Meanwhile, the anti-secession politicians will be getting slaughtered.

It may never happen, but it's fun to think about fascist assholes like you scurrying about in mortal terror all day.

I understand exactly how you feel. I would take great pleasure in personally shooting secessionist traitors, watching them plead for their miserable lives while they piss their pants in terror. That sounds like a good day to me.

The difference is you delight at inflicting harm and suffering on innocent people who want nothing more than to be left alone.

That is so beautifully liberal!

What's the matter tough guy, you were so enthusiastic about shooting people a little while ago. Did you lose the courage of your convictions somewhere? A cowardly little shit like you wouldn't even be worth shooting.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Apparently you believe the forces of the seceding states would line up their men and charge into the machine guns like Picket's charge at Gettysburg. Today there is something called "asymmetrical warfare." It a very simple matter to make sure the politicians and judges who oppose secession have very short terms in office. Today someone can easily and cheaply make a remotely piloted bomb by strapping a couple of sticks of dynamite onto a radio controlled airplane. Just fly that over some hypocrite politician's limo and BLAMO! - scratch one vote against secession.

How long do you think that would go on before the vote was in favor of allowing secession?

The first time a pro-secessionist movement did that, they'd be labelled a terrorist organization and be droned out of existence. Ask Al-Queda's leadership how well they did against drone attacks. Oh wait, they're pretty much all dead. And they're a heck of a lot harder to find than a domestic terrorist would be given the amount of cameras, smart phones, and satellites always pointed at the population.

The second point is easily this: Asymmetrical warfare only works if your opponent agrees to be civilized and the opponent has an out of the situation. If the Feds were even half as bad as you all think they are, asymmetrical warfare would just result in a lot of dead people and a stronger Federal government by the end. Again, take a look at Syria. Or the Kurdish uprising in Iraq. It's damned hard to overthrow governments internally and a lot of the countries we are talking about don't have the technology or surveillance infrastructure the US has.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yep, all it takes to win are some nukes to the major cities, assuming the military didn't split.

Unless the military splits, or straight up sides with the secessionists, and Second Civil War attempts are going to end very very fast. I doubt it would take a nuke to end it, but if it did it would likely happen. Nukes were considered in Korea and Vietnam and those were wars the US could afford to walk away from. The Feds simply wouldn't be able to walk away from a US Civil War and if they did start to look like they could actually lose....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Works both ways. The President is practicing asymmetrical warfare against ISIS right now. He is fighting them in ways that gives them little wiggle room. And were idiots like you to try a guerrilla war here in the US, there are many of us that would aid in taking you out. You cannot hide in a population that is largely hostile to you.

Your assumption that the population would be "largely hostile" isn't true, and I seriously doubt the president is going to launch airstrikes against American cities. You can't "take anyone out" if you don't know who they are. Meanwhile, the anti-secession politicians will be getting slaughtered.

It may never happen, but it's fun to think about fascist assholes like you scurrying about in mortal terror all day.

Again, once assassinations start, that would constitute Terrorism. You'd lose the population and you'd be dead within days from a Predator drone strike.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This was all settled at Apomatox Court House. You lost, and this is One Nation. Try such idiocy again, and you may find yourself fighting the sane citizens of this nation even before the Police and Military step in.

My great grandfather was in the 11th Illinois Infantry, Fort Donaldson and Shiloh, all the way to New Orleans. He fought for the preservation of the Union, I am quite willing to do the same, just as the majority of our citizens would be.

HAHAHA. What a moron you are. Don't you realize that america was FOUNDED on secession? What do you think george washington fought for?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[
Lincoln and the Yankee carpet baggers are the ones who did all the oppressing.

The Southern documents of Secession all argue in favor of slavery. You pretty much lose the moral high ground right there. Which by the way, is a huge reason the South lost. Europe wouldn't have minded jumping in and seeing the US split but the South's pro-Slavery stance pretty much ended any hope that would happen.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Lincoln and the Yankee carpet baggers are the ones who did all the oppressing. They burned down and destroyed private property. They looted, raped and pillaged. They killed 50,000 civilians. In the North Lincoln and his thugs arrested and even executed people without a trial. He shut down 300 news papers. He arrested the entire state legislature of Maryland. He instituted involuntary servitude (the draft).

Yeah, there's a guy who believes in freedom and individual rights!

Lincoln was a monster but history is written by the victors and so he's gone down as a saint. He was a super-rich corporate lawyer who started the CW as a way to destroy states rights. He wanted centralized power so he and his cronies could get even richer. Booth was the saint.

 

[bripat9643]

There are no secession rules printed anywhere. The Supreme Court that ruled on the issue was populated by a gang of Lincoln appointed hacks. What of the chances that they handed down an objective disinterested ruling? They are about the same as the chance of Harry Reid telling the truth, I imagine.

\
If there are no rules then there would have to be legal agreements made between the two parties. Armed rebellion is simply treason.

In other words the Southern states would have to get Lincoln to "agree" to let them secede - something he had no intention of doing.

Go **** yourself.

You don't make a "legal agreement" with someone who's holding a gun to your head.

Die or Serve.

Your choice.

That's the kind of "choice" that liberals and Nazis always have to offer.

That's the only choice you can make in the situation when you have a gun held to your head.

At least you get to choose. Most of the time, your enemy choose for you to die.

Wow, liberals are such great humanitarians. They only want what's best for the people, even if they have to kill them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Southern documents of Secession all argue in favor of slavery. You pretty much lose the moral high ground right there. Which by the way, is a huge reason the South lost. Europe wouldn't have minded jumping in and seeing the US split but the South's pro-Slavery stance pretty much ended any hope that would happen.

That's why lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. It didn't free a single slave since it only applied to the south, not the slave owning states in the north. The EP didn't fool anyone in america but it did in yurp.

 

[bripat9643]

[
Lincoln and the Yankee carpet baggers are the ones who did all the oppressing.

The Southern documents of Secession all argue in favor of slavery. You pretty much lose the moral high ground right there. Which by the way, is a huge reason the South lost. Europe wouldn't have minded jumping in and seeing the US split but the South's pro-Slavery stance pretty much ended any hope that would happen.

It doesn't matter what the Southern documents of secession say. The bottom line is that Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln started the war when he blockaded Southern ports and invaded Virginia.

As usual, the Lincoln apologists all post the same old shopworn arguments, and they're all full of shit.

 

[Discombobulated]

[
Lincoln and the Yankee carpet baggers are the ones who did all the oppressing.

The Southern documents of Secession all argue in favor of slavery. You pretty much lose the moral high ground right there. Which by the way, is a huge reason the South lost. Europe wouldn't have minded jumping in and seeing the US split but the South's pro-Slavery stance pretty much ended any hope that would happen.

It doesn't matter what the Southern documents of secession say. The bottom line is that Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln started the war when he blockaded Southern ports and invaded Virginia.

As usual, the Lincoln apologists all post the same old shopworn arguments, and they're all full of shit.

So now it doesn't matter what actual historic documents tell us.......he he, ha ha, ho ho, chuckle, snicker, chortle, uncontrollable laughter.......

 

[bripat9643]

Works both ways. The President is practicing asymmetrical warfare against ISIS right now. He is fighting them in ways that gives them little wiggle room. And were idiots like you to try a guerrilla war here in the US, there are many of us that would aid in taking you out. You cannot hide in a population that is largely hostile to you.

Your assumption that the population would be "largely hostile" isn't true, and I seriously doubt the president is going to launch airstrikes against American cities. You can't "take anyone out" if you don't know who they are. Meanwhile, the anti-secession politicians will be getting slaughtered.

It may never happen, but it's fun to think about fascist assholes like you scurrying about in mortal terror all day.

I understand exactly how you feel. I would take great pleasure in personally shooting secessionist traitors, watching them plead for their miserable lives while they piss their pants in terror. That sounds like a good day to me.

The difference is you delight at inflicting harm and suffering on innocent people who want nothing more than to be left alone.

That is so beautifully liberal!

What's the matter tough guy, you were so enthusiastic about shooting people a little while ago. Did you lose the courage of your convictions somewhere? A cowardly little shit like you wouldn't even be worth shooting.

No, I will take great delight in shooting any Yankee carpet baggers who choose to invade my state. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your so-called "ideals."

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, all it takes to win are some nukes to the major cities, assuming the military didn't split.

Unless the military splits, or straight up sides with the secessionists, and Second Civil War attempts are going to end very very fast. I doubt it would take a nuke to end it, but if it did it would likely happen. Nukes were considered in Korea and Vietnam and those were wars the US could afford to walk away from. The Feds simply wouldn't be able to walk away from a US Civil War and if they did start to look like they could actually lose....

If you think the the U.S. government is going to use nukes on it's own people, then you really are one sick despicable fascist asshole. Furthermore, there's this thing called the Constitution which prevents the federal government from wiping out entire American cities. That's just a slight violation of the Constitutional rights of the people living in those cities.

So aside from your enthusiasm for mass slaughter of your own countrymen, you demonstrate complete ignorance for and contempt of the Constitution of the United States.

As far as allowing states to secede goes, why do you imagine the federal government "couldn't" allow that? The Soviet Union allowed it, so why not the USA? I fully realize that bootlicking assholes like yourself would have a petulant little tantrum over it, but there's already a large fraction of the population who view the idea favorably. I seriously doubt there are many people who would support nuking American cities over it.

 

[Discombobulated]

Works both ways. The President is practicing asymmetrical warfare against ISIS right now. He is fighting them in ways that gives them little wiggle room. And were idiots like you to try a guerrilla war here in the US, there are many of us that would aid in taking you out. You cannot hide in a population that is largely hostile to you.

Your assumption that the population would be "largely hostile" isn't true, and I seriously doubt the president is going to launch airstrikes against American cities. You can't "take anyone out" if you don't know who they are. Meanwhile, the anti-secession politicians will be getting slaughtered.

It may never happen, but it's fun to think about fascist assholes like you scurrying about in mortal terror all day.

I understand exactly how you feel. I would take great pleasure in personally shooting secessionist traitors, watching them plead for their miserable lives while they piss their pants in terror. That sounds like a good day to me.

The difference is you delight at inflicting harm and suffering on innocent people who want nothing more than to be left alone.

That is so beautifully liberal!

What's the matter tough guy, you were so enthusiastic about shooting people a little while ago. Did you lose the courage of your convictions somewhere? A cowardly little shit like you wouldn't even be worth shooting.

No, I will take great delight in shooting any Yankee carpet baggers who choose to invade my state. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your so-called "ideals."

I was just discussing strategy and future military operations with my Communist masters in DC. When I invade your state at the head of my liberal army the first thing we will do is send in the Black Panther brigades to confiscate your guns. Then I will decree that all the white women in your state will marry black men, Christianity will be outlawed, Sharia Law imposed on all citizens, gay marriage will be made mandatory. But not before I've invoked the right of Prima Nocte and fucked all your wives, sisters and mothers.

 

[dcraelin]

too bad in some ways that Scotland didn't vote for secession so we could have seen how it would have worked out.

If it was to be done peaceably how would doing it be determined?...... a majority vote?.....that would be truly ironic as most people I've heard advocate such a thing are fond of saying "republic not a democracy".......so would they split off with a majority vote and then fight amongst themselves over determination of who sets the initial rules?

I believe I read one time that Texas has it written right in with their founding documents that they can split into 5 separate states if they wish.

 

[Discombobulated]

too bad in some ways that Scotland didn't vote for secession so we could have seen how it would have worked out.

If it was to be done peaceably how would doing it be determined?...... a majority vote?.....that would be truly ironic as most people I've heard advocate such a thing are fond of saying "republic not a democracy".......so would they split off with a majority vote and then fight amongst themselves over determination of who sets the initial rules?

I believe I read one time that Texas has it written right in with their founding documents that they can split into 5 separate states if they wish.

I wonder if people in Texas would be happy if some counties voted to secede from the state and join Mexico?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[
Lincoln and the Yankee carpet baggers are the ones who did all the oppressing.

The Southern documents of Secession all argue in favor of slavery. You pretty much lose the moral high ground right there. Which by the way, is a huge reason the South lost. Europe wouldn't have minded jumping in and seeing the US split but the South's pro-Slavery stance pretty much ended any hope that would happen.

It doesn't matter what the Southern documents of secession say. The bottom line is that Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery. Secession did not start the war. Lincoln started the war when he blockaded Southern ports and invaded Virginia.

As usual, the Lincoln apologists all post the same old shopworn arguments, and they're all full of shit.

Serious questions: When two sides go to war, do you think they really go to war for the same reason?

Yep, Lincoln didn't invade to stop Slavery any more than the rank and file poor white Southerner fought to uphold Slavery. However, the Southern Diplomats that led the South into war most certainly DID secede to protect the institution of slavery. It says so in their own secession documents.

That absolutely cost the South the moral high ground in the eyes of Europe and pretty much doomed the Confederacy out of the gate. Mathematically, they could never win the Civil War. Every single metric you can come up with for military power favored the North. Every Single One. And while Lincoln didn't invade to stop Slavery, the Northern population as a whole had a huge feeling of moral superiority thanks to the South's defense of that reprehensible institution.

When you're in a weaker military position you win in one of two ways:
1. Outside intervention: Never was going to happen thanks to Europe's stance on Slavery.
2. Crush morale: Never going to happen as the North always felt justified crushing the South to dust thanks to Slavery.

I know you want to think Slavery had nothing at all to do with the Civil War. You are absolutely wrong. It was a huge political and moral weapon for the North, and for the Southern leaders it was front and center as a reason to secede.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If you think the the U.S. government is going to use nukes on it's own people, then you really are one sick despicable fascist asshole. Furthermore, there's this thing called the Constitution which prevents the federal government from wiping out entire American cities. That's just a slight violation of the Constitutional rights of the people living in those cities.

You're the one that think Liberals have no respect for the Constitution or for individual people. You folks only talk about secession when it's Liberals in power. Using logic and your own beliefs, you have zero chance of living through a successful secession.

My personal feelings? You won't see US cities nuked. You actually won't see states secede. Ever. Texas is the most likely to try and they'd back off real quick once it becomes clear that all the businesses that have moved to Texas would straight up leave following secession. National level businesses move to Texas because of the favorable conditions INSIDE the USA. If Texas left, they'd be no more favorable than Mexico for corporations wanting to do business in the US. Probably less. Economics would effectively end any secession movement among the majority of the population.

That only leaves the violent fringes, and again if you think they'd last longer than a month in open rebellion then you don't know about Ruby Ridge or Waco. And in those circumstances, the Feds didn't have Predator drones yet. Once violent secession started, fringe elements responsible would die off fairly quick. The Feds and US public don't support terrorism.