Where do you stand on State succession?

[kaz]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

Sure Jake, that's what the rebel soldiers were thinking, what kept them motivated. Our rich people must have slaves, damn it!

 

[bodecea]

Texas gone yet?

Why not?

 

[Synthaholic]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

 

[Redfish]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

If a state or group of states decided to secede from the USA, they would ignore that part of the constitution because it would not be binding on their new country.

The question is whether the federal govt would take military action to prevent states from seceding.

Dividing up the country could be done very peacefully. I am not advocating for that but it could be done.

The country is roughly 50/50 right now between the socialists who want the govt to control everything and the constitutionalists who want very limited federal govt in their everyday lives.

I don't know how that divide gets healed. A split may be the only solution. Then we can all see which system works best.

 

[kaz]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

This thread is about what do you think. Since you don't, you're in the wrong place. There are lots of threads you have the opportunity to post what Obama thinks. You would be more comfortable in one of those.

 

[Contumacious]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

I see that 18 of your homies are scare shitless that the taxpayers and producers will abandon a sinking ship and then who is going to provide welfare benefits.

A civil war will very very bloody. But the parasites must understand that their neighbors do not owe them a living. DC bureaucrats must be made understand that abuses in the name of "national security" must cease.

 

[Katzndogz]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

Slaves were expensive so I doubt the percentage. Only rich folks could afford them.

The sad fact of the matter is that like most social change, it didn't happen until technology made it possible. The north was in the industrial revolution where factories were the norm. There were no automated farming equipment, it took man hours. That's why even those in the north who opposed slavery on a philosophical level, had them if they needed them, like Washington and Jefferson.

Men like John Adams, who was a lawyer, could survive fine without a slave. So the whole mess would have solved itself instead of going through a horrifically bloody war waged with old battlefield tactics with modern technology. It was one meat grinder after another.

If the south had broken away without incident, they would have come back for economic opportunity. Same with women's sufferage. Technology and economics shapes man more than the moral high ground.

All reasons why slavery was on its way to dying. If there had not been a civil war, slavery would have been dead in a few years anyway. It would have died as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

Yeah, we've heard that lie and disposed of it already.

Now shut the **** up.

 

[bripat9643]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

Slaves were expensive so I doubt the percentage. Only rich folks could afford them.

The sad fact of the matter is that like most social change, it didn't happen until technology made it possible. The north was in the industrial revolution where factories were the norm. There were no automated farming equipment, it took man hours. That's why even those in the north who opposed slavery on a philosophical level, had them if they needed them, like Washington and Jefferson.

Men like John Adams, who was a lawyer, could survive fine without a slave. So the whole mess would have solved itself instead of going through a horrifically bloody war waged with old battlefield tactics with modern technology. It was one meat grinder after another.

If the south had broken away without incident, they would have come back for economic opportunity. Same with women's sufferage. Technology and economics shapes man more than the moral high ground.

All reasons why slavery was on its way to dying. If there had not been a civil war, slavery would have been dead in a few years anyway. It would have died as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

It would have died faster if the South had been allowed to secede. Before the Civil War Northern states were obligated to track down, capture and return escaped slaves. If the South became a separate country, then it would have been under no such obligation. Slaves in the border states would have fled North in droves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Texas gone yet?

Why not?

Because you haven't picked up a gun and forced them out yet.

Get all your San Francisco cronies to launch an assault. Do it today, shortbus! Failure to act makes the baby Karl Marx cry.

 

[Iceweasel]

It would have died faster if the South had been allowed to secede. Before the Civil War Northern states were obligated to track down, capture and return escaped slaves. If the South became a separate country, then it would have been under no such obligation. Slaves in the border states would have fled North in droves.

That's a good point.

 

[Contumacious]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

Slaves were expensive so I doubt the percentage. Only rich folks could afford them.

The sad fact of the matter is that like most social change, it didn't happen until technology made it possible. The north was in the industrial revolution where factories were the norm. There were no automated farming equipment, it took man hours. That's why even those in the north who opposed slavery on a philosophical level, had them if they needed them, like Washington and Jefferson.

Men like John Adams, who was a lawyer, could survive fine without a slave. So the whole mess would have solved itself instead of going through a horrifically bloody war waged with old battlefield tactics with modern technology. It was one meat grinder after another.

If the south had broken away without incident, they would have come back for economic opportunity. Same with women's sufferage. Technology and economics shapes man more than the moral high ground.

All reasons why slavery was on its way to dying. If there had not been a civil war, slavery would have been dead in a few years anyway. It would have died as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

Slavery was already in sharp decline in the border states and the upper South generally, mostly for economic reasons . . . there is evidence that there was growing political support within the border states for gradual, peaceful emancipation that would have ended slavery there"

.

 

[Synthaholic]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

This thread is about what do you think. Since you don't, you're in the wrong place. There are lots of threads you have the opportunity to post what Obama thinks. You would be more comfortable in one of those.

^^^ Chief apologist for the Know Nothing Caucus. #teabagger

 

[Iceweasel]

... the Know Nothing Caucus. #teabagger

They, unlike liberals, know that you can't spend your way into prosperity.

 

[kaz]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

This thread is about what do you think. Since you don't, you're in the wrong place. There are lots of threads you have the opportunity to post what Obama thinks. You would be more comfortable in one of those.

^^^ Chief apologist for the Know Nothing Caucus. #teabagger

I don't speak gibberish, can you translate into English for me?

BTW, did you notice your arrows point to your avatar? Also, you really should get over how Paul Ryan kept kicking your ass in school.

 

[Contumacious]

Has anyone pointed out to the teatarded in this thread that in order for a state to secede the other states must agree?

Does anyone think that would ever happen?

This thread is about what do you think. Since you don't, you're in the wrong place. There are lots of threads you have the opportunity to post what Obama thinks. You would be more comfortable in one of those.

^^^ Chief apologist for the Know Nothing Caucus. #teabagger

While lamenting the situation northern newspaper editors felt that South Carolina had the constitutional right to secede. He famously said “Godspeed” and “let them go”


Horace Greeley
The NY Times then known as The New York Herald

.

 

[BlindBoo]

Slaves were expensive so I doubt the percentage. Only rich folks could afford them.

The sad fact of the matter is that like most social change, it didn't happen until technology made it possible. The north was in the industrial revolution where factories were the norm. There were no automated farming equipment, it took man hours. That's why even those in the north who opposed slavery on a philosophical level, had them if they needed them, like Washington and Jefferson.

Men like John Adams, who was a lawyer, could survive fine without a slave. So the whole mess would have solved itself instead of going through a horrifically bloody war waged with old battlefield tactics with modern technology. It was one meat grinder after another.

If the south had broken away without incident, they would have come back for economic opportunity. Same with women's sufferage. Technology and economics shapes man more than the moral high ground.

All reasons why slavery was on its way to dying. If there had not been a civil war, slavery would have been dead in a few years anyway. It would have died as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

Slavery was already in sharp decline in the border states and the upper South generally, mostly for economic reasons . . . there is evidence that there was growing political support within the border states for gradual, peaceful emancipation that would have ended slavery there"

.

The only state that saw a sharp decline was Delaware and they never had a huge population anyway. Maryland declined slightly.

Total Slave Population in United States, by State

Personally I think slavery in the South would have lasted into the 20th century.

 

[Knightfall]

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

So it sounds other than the last bit that the third choice is pretty accurate for you. It's impossible to capture every possible view precisely, you sort of have to view it as a bucket.

Yeah, it's accurate enough. I'm caught between wanting to secede because I doubt the Untied States is going to pull out of its tailspin and wanting to avoid secession because I know it would lead to war if not immediately then in the long term.

It's a hell of alot harder in the global economy if the 21st century the the 18th century.

That may be true or it might not. Do you have any evidence to back up the idea that it is harder now? I know many countries have created new currencies since then.

Regardless, you made it sound as if the sheer act of creating a new currency was a near unscalable summit when it has been done frequently throughout history.

You are full of shit.
Every one of these States would immidiateley be in a recession. The feseral governtment would immidiatly cut highway and airport funding, reposess or shut down federal bases which pump billions into local economies. What are you idiots going to do about healthcare, disaster relief, social security?

Everything that is the proper domain of the government, roads, military, ect., could be funded by the Southern States. No conservatives are against government; they are against big government. The billions that are currently coming from the South to fund the United States government could just as easily fund the Southern State programs just as easily though there would be a comparatively large start up cost to get some departments up to speed, but for the most part, the local State governments would take over most of these responsibilities. As far as all the other specific issues you mentioned, social security, disaster relief, ect., these would be the responsibilities of the individuals or the States if the individuals voted for such programs in their States.

 

[Mr Natural]

If they don't like it here, let them go.

 

[Synthaholic]

... the Know Nothing Caucus. #teabagger

They, unlike liberals, know that you can't spend your way into prosperity.

Of course you can.

Where do you think the saying "It takes money to make money" comes from?