Is it time for secession?

[Pat H]

This "they"...who are we talking about here? The state's legislature? Its citizens?

Rhetorical? Who decides state policies now?

What of those in the state who oppose secession? Are they just expected to move out? Is that reasonable? If somebody who had made their life in a state still considers themselves more of a US citizen than, say, a California citizen then does the US have any obligation to them?

I gave this a lot of thought. Taking me as an example, I lived in California for 13 years, yet if they'd decided to seceed, what choice would I have had if I'd not wanted to become a California citizen, seeing as I'm not a CA native and had little attachment to or for the state? The reasonable answer, it seems to me, would have been for me to vacate CA and leave it to those who'd decided to support secession for that state. Barring any unusual events, that would have been easily accomplished.

Because I know I'd be pretty angry if my state suddenly up and decided I wasn't in the US anymore.

Are you a native or someone with cultural attachments to your state? Genuine attachments to a state are usually not dependent on being a subject of the US government.

EDIT: For a more direct question, should an actual referendum among a state's citizens be required for secession? Should a simple majority be enough to pass it?

Good question, answerable only by each states citizens I'd think.

 

[Pat H]

What are you trying to prove, Pat? Your initial "poll" was terribly inadequate,

To you.

seemingly designed to provoke thought along the lines of the question but nothing of substance has been offered to justify the need.

That is up to those who wish to post in the thread. There a relatively free space here to post what justifications might be required.

A "leviathan" state...come on! Even in good 'ol TR you have access to a way of life and freedoms well beyond most world denizens.

An irrelevancy.

You're obviously a rabble rouser from "Up North" whiling away some lonesome hours in a dorm at Furman.

Sorry, I'm a SC native and long out of university, with more than "a" degree; also my education isn't relevant to this subject.

 

[mohutley]

You're a master at baiting, however you really don't have anything posted other than specious arguments.

Enjoy yourself in TR. I understand the area is full of stumps with which you can argue yourself hoarse.

 

[Wildalaska]

To you.

To me too.

WildAlaska TM

 

[Bruxley]

Me 3.

The 3 options, if they were to follow the title and OP should be something like:

-Yes, States should be able to separate from the United States and form new Countries.

-Maybe, but I need to study the question further

-No, States should not be permitted to separate from the United States and form new Countries.

The way it is set up is leading and doesn't actually give options to answer the thread title and OP. To answer 'no' forces an involuntary agreement of using force to control a State.

The way it is set up begs the question of intent. Do you intend to ask about secession, give Federalism questions, then use the poll results to claim that secession is a popular desire?

In fact, there have been many questions left on the table unanswered.

Namely:

The territory within the Confederacy did not belong to the federal government for the reasons stated. Again, the federal government holds title to a very limited area of America, even Lincoln didn't claim the US government held title to all the land.

Did the Confederacy lay title on the territory it was claiming was no longer US territory?

Well....?


Would some entity or group simply laying claim to the territories of American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island' Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or Wake Island simply get away with just claiming them as their own new country despite thier being neither property or States?

Claim valid?


As far as using the terms 'legal' and 'rights' for the Confederacy, I thought they were claiming sovereignty, why would they have any claim to another nations rights or protections of law if they are sovereign?

Why?

As Jefferson said, secession shouldn't be for light and transient reasons, and I think if secession were begun by a state of group of states, it would be for serious reasons.

What would those serious reasons be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level?

The reason?

Tough questions indeed..........

 

[TNFrank]

I think the States can remain "United" AND conduct business within their own boarders as Independant Entities like "mini countries" all at the same time.
We are being taxed at a rate far greater then we were being when England ruled us. The small taxation that England imposed on us caused a Revolution but people today are too Comfortable to risk ANYTHING for Freedom.
Never mind that a good chunk of your hard earned money goes to the Feds. Never mind that the Freedoms that our Forefathers had is down the drain. Never mind that the Feds have all but made us helpless in the face of our enemies both Forgine and Domestic with their Anti-Gun laws. Never mind that States no longer have the Right to say what is and isn't going to happen within their borders.
The Feds should take care of business outside of the country and the States should mind business that takes place inside the country. That's the way it was originally set-up and that's the way it should be today.

 

[Pat H]

What would those serious reasons be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level?

Good, you finally asked a question.

The reasons a state's population has for secession are valid, to them, and whether or not they're valid to the other states is irrelevant to the act of secession. To prevent, particularly by armed intervention, the secession of a state or group of states through lawful processes is repugnant to freedom and liberty. America was founded upon the right of secession, those opposed to secession of the 13 states from the UK posed precisely the same question you posted above.

Thank God the answer was NO.

Should the Czech Republic been attacked by Slovakia during their secession? Should Scotland be attacked by England because they wanted, and now have, their own Parliament and will eventually seceed from the UK?

In America, each region has it's own unique culture, that despite the best efforts of the federal government for 140+ years, largely remains intact. Each region has it's own best interests to attend to and a one size fits all government isn't working.

 

[9mmHP]

Correct. Lincoln didn't talk about overthrowing slavery, but the Suthruns could hardly talk about anything other than preserving slavery. To them, it was all about slavery. The "rights" they talked about were the rights to determine if someone was chattel property, who was a citizen, and whether they could claw slaves back from other states and territories that found slavery to an abomination. Now, it's the right of some to defend the peculiar institution, and it is the right of the rest of us to think that you're absolutely off your rocker.

Quote:
No, it didn't work the first time because the "right" that the south was fighting for was the right to own other human beings. It failed because they were fighting for a disgusting cause and their ideas needed to be squashed.

No, that's incorrect. Read Lincoln's First Inaugural address to find out the correct answer. Further, at least four states that remained in the Union after April 1861 had chattel slavery under the law. The southern states fought against an unlawful invasion, period.

 

[Redworm]

No, that's incorrect. Read Lincoln's First Inaugural address to find out the correct answer. Further, at least four states that remained in the Union after April 1861 had chattel slavery under the law. The southern states fought against an unlawful invasion, period.

Yet that was still one of the primary catalysts for the conflict. At the end of the day the events of the civil war led to the abolishment of slavery even if the war itself didn't end it. Without it the south wouldn't have given them up. Had the south split off many more generations of people would have been slaves. Bottom line: it was worth it for the good of the species.

No, Lincoln's murder of over one million people was far more than a "spanking", AND completely unnecessary. May I remind you, again, that the southern states were not the first group of states that considered secession, Google the Hartford Convention.

It was neither murder nor unnecessary. I'm not saying Lincoln was a savior of any kind but his actions did keep the south from splitting off and creating a slave-owning nation that would have continued to own slaves for a much longer time.

Once again, it was worth it for the good of the species. One can pretend that if all had been left alone eventually the kind and gentle white folk would have freed their savage property but it's a bunch of crap. Look how many generations it took after abolition for blacks to even come close to being accepted in American society, just imagine how many more people would have suffered under the south's rule if they hadn't been forced to realize the inhumanity of what they were doing.

And yes, I realize only a small fraction of southerners actually owned slaves. But it was still supported by everyone else.

Slavery was a States' right protected by the US Constitution, and yankees turned against the US Constitution, which simply isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be. And of course yankees freed the slaves from the safety of their lily white States, which also isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be.

Slavery should have never been a state's right in the first place. The Constitution was wrong in allowing that. The founders were wrong in allowing it to continue. It sucks that it took a bloody conflict for people to see that but in hindsight (which is usually 20/20) it was worth it so that this country - and the world - would start a trend in recognizing slavery as the crime it should have always been.

The point is that there are certain things that justify secession. If Texas wanted to secede because the federal government instituted a nation-wide gun ban or took full control of the media, that would be justified. If California wanted to secede because they wanted to become their own socialist paradise it would not be justified. If Utah wanted to secede in order to kick out all non-Mormons and create a theocracy it would not be justified.

It all boils down to what one considers justified and what one believes in the best interest of the human race.


edit: Musketeer put it best, imho

 

[Pat H]

Correct. Lincoln didn't talk about overthrowing slavery, but the Suthruns could hardly talk about anything other than preserving slavery. To them, it was all about slavery. The "rights" they talked about were the rights to determine if someone was chattel property, who was a citizen, and whether they could claw slaves back from other states and territories that found slavery to an abomination. Now, it's the right of some to defend the peculiar institution, and it is the right of the rest of us to think that you're absolutely off your rocker.

Slavery ended in December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. The last state citizens to file law suits for illegal taking of property, their slaves, were in New Jersey.

I find it a bit disingenuous to use an activity that has been outlawed for 142 years as a reason to not consider secession in the 21st century in response to a rogue, leviathan national government. But, that is your choice.

There used to be another route open to the states that avoided the need for secession, and that was state government nullification of federal laws they considered unConstitutional. I don't know if that would be something to consider today, but it might be preferable to secession to some state's citizens.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Another common misconception is that Southern blacks were all slaves and could own no property. However, blacks themselves held slaves throughout the war. According to Roger D. McGrath, in “Slavery’s Inconvenient Facts,” Chronicles Magazine, November 2001, in 1860 some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. In South Carolina alone, black slaveholders owned more than 10,000 blacks. Born a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, making him one of Charleston’s leading slaveholders. In the 1850 census for Charleston City, the port of Charleston, there were 68 black men and 123 black women who owned slaves. In Louisiana’s St. Landry Parish, according to the 1860 census, black planter Auguste Donatto owned 70 slaves and farmed 500 acres of cotton fields. Of course, black slaveholders were the exception to the rule, but so were white ones. According to McGrath, only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves—little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or twenty to twenty-five percent if all the members of the slave owners’ families are included. This means that seventy-five percent or more of Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were members of families who did.

I guess the good thing about winning the war is that you get to write the history.It was a tool in churning up enough emotion for the North to get people to fight for what they really wanted,which in every war is power,control,wealth.Oh,I forgot oil.

 

[Musketeer]

I like the line about how the Federal gov't has left us defenseless against foreign powers because of gun laws... Right, you and your AR were going to shoot down a Soviet Backfire Bomber if the balloon went up in 1988...

Make your arguments but make them reasonable or all others assosciated with it sound equally and unjustly ludicrous.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wolveriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiines

Wildgottothehardwarestoreandseizethe4473sAlaska TM

 

[Redworm]

This reminds me of a lousy book I read, "America's Last Days." It was lousy due to the sophomoric skills of the author, not the concept. The idea involved not so much the secession of two states but a single group's intention to take over a pair of states and force them to secede (though from the looks of it those the people of those two states were more than willing to go along with it). While at first it seemed like a noble idea it seemed that these people were doing it partly because they didn't want to be led by a gay vice president and they were willing to nuke civilians and crumble the nation's economy to do it.

Granted some of their ideals were very powerful and justified but they tainted it by bringing hate into the mix and killing innocent people.

 

[9mmHP]

Is there even one state that has called for secession recently? If secession is a power of the states, as is argued, it is up to states to exercise it. No? Why? Because there is no good reason to that couldn't be solved by a simpler, easier, less dangerous remedy. Secession is using a shotgun to swat flies.

 

[Pat H]

Slavery should have never been a state's right in the first place. The Constitution was wrong in allowing that. The founders were wrong in allowing it to continue. It sucks that it took a bloody conflict for people to see that but in hindsight (which is usually 20/20) it was worth it so that this country - and the world - would start a trend in recognizing slavery as the crime it should have always been.

Yes, that was the position of the Recolonization Society of which Lincoln was president in Illinois for years. They wanted the blacks out of North America to make it an all white enclave.

You must also consider, since you've brought this up, that an Amendment to the US Constitution was passed AFTER the secession of the southern states making slavery permanent as far as the federal government was concerned.

Additionally, since you're obviously deeply interested in slavery, you may wish to learn more about it from these scholarly texts.
1. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery
2. Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

Back on topic, I don't think anyone would propose enslaving anyone as a rationale for secession, but I can think of a number who've proposed it to leave an intolerant, centralized state.

Walter Williams wrote an interesting essay on secession about five years ago, nothing has changed for the better since that time.

 

[Redworm]

Yes, that was the position of the Recolonization Society of which Lincoln was president in Illinois for years. They wanted the blacks out of North America to make it an all white enclave.

k, and? you think I'm singing Lincoln's praises here?

You must also consider, since you've brought this up, that an Amendment to the US Constitution was passed AFTER the secession of the southern states making slavery permanent as far as the federal government was concerned.

I imagine you mean making slavery permanently illegal?

But if so, I don't see your point. Had the southern states been allowed to go off on their own they would have continued the practice of slavery for a longer period of time.

Additionally, since you're obviously deeply interested in slavery, you may wish to learn more about it from these scholarly texts.
1. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery
2. Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

Cool, I'll check those out. However you seem to think I believe the north was full of wholesome people that wanted only to free the poor blacks and that the south was full of evil white people that wanted only to enslave the savage blacks.

I believe neither. I understand the culture of the time, I understand the history of slavery. That doesn't change the fact that the "war of northern aggression" was completely and fully justified for the good of humanity.

Back on topic, I don't think anyone would propose enslaving anyone as a rationale for secession, but I can think of a number who've proposed it to leave an intolerant, centralized state.

And it's simply my personal opinion that leaving our current federal government does not justify secession. It doesn't justify Texas or California taking away all those resources from the rest of the nation. Not even close.

If we were talking about a government that was imprisoning citizens by the thousands ever month for merely disagreeing with the government that would be one thing but just because they're a little miffed at the politics? Please.

 

[Wildalaska]

Raise ya one marxist to your journalists


http://www.amazon.com/Roll-Jordan-World-Slaves-Made/dp/0394716523/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3107147-1996416?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191343136&sr=1-1

If we were talking about a government that was imprisoning citizens by the thousands ever month for merely disagreeing with the government that would be one thing but just because they're a little miffed at the politics? Please.

Miffed

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Rudy is president. Im taking my state and going home!

WildneedsmorecoffeeAlaska TM

 

[9mmHP]

Again, where are the demands of the states to secede?

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

 

[Slugthrower]

This nation is supposed to be The United States of America. Note the word states. It wasn't intended to be the United State of America, which it has become, IMO, in recent decades.

The sovereignty of the states is what needs to be recognized and returned to it's proper place. A grass roots effort to re-establish this sovereignty is needed. If the Fed will not recognize this, after extensive effort to establish that it is constitutionally required that states are sovereign, then there is cause to seek secession.