Is it time for secession?

[Bruxley]

I like the Revolutionary War analogy to the Civil War. True, we 'seceded from Britain. We claimed British territory as ours and that we were a new Country. The British held no title to the territory but it was for sure British.

However, we did not in any way expect that the British would not be coming to retake their territory. We knew we were committing an act of rebellion of the Crown. And we knew that if we were unable to repel the British that serious consequences (death, seizure of assets, imprisonment abroad, etc.) would be inevitable. We also knew that the protections given British subjects would not be allotted to the new Country or those fighting in it's army. No delusions there.

The Civil War was the South doing the same thing. You claimed earlier that it was not US territory because the Federal Government didn't hold title on all the land. Wrong, US territory is not the same as US property. The Confederacy didn't hold title yet claimed it as their territory. The difference is that the Confederacy was not able the repel the army of the nation who's territory they were taking. Failing to repel that army resulted in facing the consequences described above.

Further, if the Constitution is a treaty as you asserted then that treaty was broken by the southern States. And breaking a treaty is to lose the protections and terms it provided. And as a proclaimed sovereign nation you can no more expect to be treated as a citizen of another country. It would be ludicrous for one nation to expect the protection of the laws of another nation.

The rebellion of the colonies, the south, and any other potential secession should have no expectation that the territory they are taking from another nation won't be answered by that nation with a vigorous attempt to re-gain that territory via force. To expect otherwise is naive.

The question of what constitutes a serious reason for secession be that cannot be addressed by voter referendum, passing or repealing legislation, or Constitutional amendment either at the State or Federal level was left unanswered but the answer is none. Unless representatives stop relinquishing their elected offices peacefully when no longer voted in we still have the control of our government. The protection is protection of participation.

Our strength is our unity of diverse States. Solutions to problems, no matter the gravity, are addressable by our unique system of government. Participation, not just complaining, is required to fix problems. Participation, not just attacking each other, is required to apply the devices afforded to us to shape our laws and therefore or lives.

There are no Trotsky puppet masters directing or government. The is no vast right wing or left wing cabal directing the decisions of our leaders and quelling decent and vocalization of opinion. If their were many of us would have already had a knock on the door.

Truth is individual Americans UNITED at the various levels of government still steer the boat. Don't like the direction? Then participate more. Like the direction? Then participate more to assure it isn't altered. The point is participation can and will solve any problem short of the peaceful transfer of power no longer taking place. And even then, unity will fix that too, not peacefully but even that can be addressed via unity.

It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy -- a Government of the people, by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their Government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
Abraham Lincoln, Special Session Message, 1861.

More unity and participation are the solution, the promoting of less unity and secession are counter to the solution.

 

[LightningJoe]

ManedWolf:


It's more complex than that. The best and the brightest in America probably never went into the electrical engineering field. You'll need an IQ in the top 1% to be a decent electrial engineer, but much farther into the upper tail of the distribution is probably a waste unless you quickly move on to a business-facing role (the executive track). Also, electrical engineering isn't for the fragile or the neurotic; those people go into academia. Psychologically robust Americans who have IQs higher than 150 make big money in business. They don't work as hard as engineers and they make a lot more money.


In the 1990's the demand for engineers went through the roof. The American engineering A team was already fully occupied. We put the B team and then the C team on the field and they were competing with the A team in India, China, and elsewhere. So, we started importing foreign A team material with special visas. F1 in graduate school, H1B for their first job, then green card, then citizenship.


The results are a net plus for America. We'd have to compete with these people anyway. Better to have them here, I suspect.

 

[FirstFreedom]

The first order of business is to get Northern Calif separated into an additional new state from Southern, so that the winner-take-all delegates system in POTUS races doesn't allow Calif to be the 900 lb gorilla anymore (plus 2 more senate seats in our favor).

 

[Leif]

These secession threads are just inane. What a waste ...

BTW, not only no, but heck no!

 

[Al Norris]

The history of the U.S. is quite adequate to the task of dealing with the idea of secession. With the Articles of Confederation, we find that the confederation was to be a perpetual Union of the States (Art. XIII). That idea was in fact, carried over to the Constitution in practice (Art. IV section 3).

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall), (1869).

It is not a decision on who or how or why or when a state can secede, but it incorporated that as part of the decision on U.S. Government Bonds held by Texas and why White did not have any possesary right to them.

That one decision sealed the fate of all secessionists. It laid out in concrete terms how a State can rightfully withdraw from the Union, all based upon the logic of how they enter into Union in the first place. That is, it is done within the Congress of the United States to begin with, and so must end there.

 

[xd9fan]

should be free and independent states, with limited union.

With the federal Govt (and Judges) not caring about the legality of immigrants, we are heading toward a break up. The people that pay the bills are getting dumped on.

 

[Pat H]

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.

Er, no, I mean an Amendment making slavery permanent.

The following amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was proposed by the 2d session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this is the only proposed (and not ratified) amendment to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"Article Thirteen

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.''
It's still, in fact, outstanding, hopefully never to be ratified.

As to the other issue, had the Southern states remained in the Union, how long do you suppose slavery would have lasted? In truth, no one knows, just like no ones knows how long slavery would have lasted in an independent south.

The history of the U.S. is quite adequate to the task of dealing with the idea of secession. With the Articles of Confederation, we find that the confederation was to be a perpetual Union of the States (Art. XIII). That idea was in fact, carried over to the Constitution in practice (Art. IV section 3).

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall), (1869).

It is not a decision on who or how or why or when a state can secede, but it incorporated that as part of the decision on U.S. Government Bonds held by Texas and why White did not have any possesary right to them.

That one decision sealed the fate of all secessionists. It laid out in concrete terms how a State can rightfully withdraw from the Union, all based upon the logic of how they enter into Union in the first place. That is, it is done within the Congress of the United States to begin with, and so must end there.

I'm surprised you didn't cite the Prize Cases, that's the usual legal cite against secession.

The thing with secession, it carries it's own morality, and no court can eliminate that. I think if a state or group of states wants to depart the Union, they have a moral and ethical right to do so, court decisions notwithstanding.

The first order of business is to get Northern Calif separated into an additional new state from Southern, so that the winner-take-all delegates system in POTUS races doesn't allow Calif to be the 900 lb gorilla anymore (plus 2 more senate seats in our favor).

That's been talked about among Californians for a long time, either two or even split into three states. California was forced to divest its Nevada territory as a condition of statehood, but other than that and the creation of West Virginia by illegitimate methods, the provision of having the state legislature in the losing state agree to the split forecloses most of these activities.

There are some interesting activities where counties have split, despite complaints that those leaving are wealthy whites leaving their poor blacks behind in some cases.

 

[xd9fan]

The thing with secession, it carries it's own morality, and no court can eliminate that. I think if a state or group of states wants to depart the Union, they have a moral and ethical right to do so, court decisions notwithstanding.

I agree. hell the founders told us in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"

They believed it so much they thought it would be even morally right to do so.




today they would be terrorists

 

[Redworm]

Er, no, I mean an Amendment making slavery permanent.

Ah, gotcha.

As to the other issue, had the Southern states remained in the Union, how long do you suppose slavery would have lasted? In truth, no one knows, just like no ones knows how long slavery would have lasted in an independent south.

True but it's utterly insane to think that the south would have abolished slavery all on its lonesome in either scenario. It's silly to think that they would have simply changed their minds. Even if a single generation had to live as slaves that still would have been one generation too many.

The war was justified to save future societies. Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20 but in this case the government made the right choice. It was a necessary evil precipitated by the refusal of many - in many areas and of varying skin tones, not just the whites in the south - to accept that all human beings deserve freedom.

 

[Justme]

I'm pretty sure that secession is out of the question, but does anyone suppose we could kick some of the southern states out? If we could just get rid of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, so many of our national averages(like income and educational level) would go up.

What do you suppose we would have to do to entice those countries into starting a new country? It would give us somewhere to export all the back breaking monotonous and low paying jobs(well somewhere closer than China).

 

[STAGE 2]

Anyone have any reynolds wrap, cause I'm fresh out.

As an aside I think its really really funny that its a staunch Paul supporter that is making the case for secession. Is this a plan B for when he doesn't win?

 

[Justme]

BTW, the taking up of arms against your rightfully elected government is pretty much the definition of a traitor. I can't stand traitors. I can't understand those who glorify traitors out of some misplaced sense that the south was honorable.

That's right, every single confederate soldier and politician was every bit as much a traitor as was John Walker Lindh, or whatever that taliban supporter's name was.

 

[9mmHP]

Fine, where's the demand by the states? Or do you propose outright insurrection? The founders also said to not do it for light and transient reasons. Internet malcontents represent an insignificant reason for tearing apart the Republic.

I agree. hell the founders told us in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"

They believed it so much they thought it would be even morally right to do so.

 

[xd9fan]

As an aside I think its really really funny that its a staunch Paul supporter that is making the case for secession. Is this a plan B for when he doesn't win?

Please Mr Neocon tell me where conservatives should go?

 

[Wildalaska]

Please Mr Neocon tell me where conservatives should go?

How about out of our bedrooms, our airwaves, our school libraries, our wive's internal organs and our houses of worship to start

WildthenwecangetalongalmostfineAlaska TM

 

[Pat H]

Fine, where's the demand by the states? Or do you propose outright insurrection?

No, I'm proposing none of those things.

If the majority of a state's, or a group of states', citizens wish secession, I'd support that. What they would be using as a justification wouldn't matter, since I'd have no say so in their decision unless I happened to live in one of them.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I have a pretty good size farm.I think I will secede.Pay property tax to my wife and she can buy more...nah,I'll just stay in.

 

[Redworm]

If the majority of a state's, or a group of states', citizens wish secession, I'd support that. What they would be using as a justification wouldn't matter, since I'd have no say so in their decision unless I happened to live in one of them.

Yeah but what if you live in one of those states and you vehemently disagree with the reason for their secession? Let's say your state decides to rid itself of guns. Completely. All out gun ban, not even bb guns in civilian hands. And now let's say 52% of the population agrees.

What now? Just gonna up and move?

 

[Musketeer]

BTW, the taking up of arms against your rightfully elected government is pretty much the definition of a traitor. I can't stand traitors. I can't understand those who glorify traitors out of some misplaced sense that the south was honorable.

That's right, every single confederate soldier and politician was every bit as much a traitor as was John Walker Lindh, or whatever that taliban supporter's name was.

Just like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and the rest of those dogs, right!?!?

 

[seeker_two]

How about out of our bedrooms, our airwaves, our school libraries, our wive's internal organs and our houses of worship to start

Gee....I don't think it's the conservatives who are pushing for the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, open marriage, abortion on demand, and lowering age of consent for minors in the media, in public education, and in religious speech (even to the point of opposition=hate speech).....

seekerandprohibitinggunsinmybedroom,tootwo