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

[Discombobulated]

Seems like a legal nightmare to me. As to Scotland, are they going to form their own military? If so, since it's not likely to measure up to England's, what was the point of breaking away?

This whole issue seems like a petulant child's tantrum more than anything necessary.

Much like the Confederacy the idea of an independent Scotland is based much more on emotion than it is on rational thought.

How about the idea of an independent Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Chechyna, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Is that "emotional?" Wasn't the idea of the United States of America "emotional?"

The United States of America is based on much more than your contrived perception.

 

[bripat9643]

Seems like a legal nightmare to me. As to Scotland, are they going to form their own military? If so, since it's not likely to measure up to England's, what was the point of breaking away?

This whole issue seems like a petulant child's tantrum more than anything necessary.

Much like the Confederacy the idea of an independent Scotland is based much more on emotion than it is on rational thought.

How about the idea of an independent Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Chechyna, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Is that "emotional?" Wasn't the idea of the United States of America "emotional?"

The United States of America is based on much more than your contrived perception.

So was the Confederacy. The claim that it was "emotional" is idiotic.

 

[Discombobulated]

Seems like a legal nightmare to me. As to Scotland, are they going to form their own military? If so, since it's not likely to measure up to England's, what was the point of breaking away?

This whole issue seems like a petulant child's tantrum more than anything necessary.

Much like the Confederacy the idea of an independent Scotland is based much more on emotion than it is on rational thought.

How about the idea of an independent Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Chechyna, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Is that "emotional?" Wasn't the idea of the United States of America "emotional?"

The United States of America is based on much more than your contrived perception.

So was the Confederacy. The claim that it was "emotional" is idiotic.

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

 

[dcraelin]

"Scotland Was Allowed To Vote On Secession. Why Can't The American States?"
Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy – thankfully.
Otherwise your question is further confirmation of your ignorance and stupidity, not that any was needed, of course.

A Constitutional Republic is a type of Democracy.....see my pictures album
The Constitution was considered in effect if 9 states ratified, 4 states could of stayed out and it would have been fine.....hardly seems like its claimed intent was to prevent seceding at the point of a sword.
On Ft Sumter, I dont know if the "territorial" waters was an accepted concept back then. Who owned ft Sumter, or compensation for it probably should have been something negotiated over... I dont think either side was willing to do that however.

You're wrong about that. The Confederacy tried many times to negotiate with Lincoln. He wasn't interested. He wanted war.

Thats something that could probably be endlessly argued..

 

[Dr.Traveler]

America tried it 150 years ago and super-rich corporate lawyer abraham lincoln said. "Screw the will of the public. If states secede there will be less money for me and my cronies to fleece out of the citizenry. Better to have a war that kills 600,000 people."

Agree to pick up your per capita share of the national debt and I'd be willing to support secession for any state passing a resolution in an open vote with sufficient voter turnout. Past that, the State and the Fed would need to negotiate the usual minutia, such as the existing military equipment in the state, mineral rights, federally held land, etc.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I am the nemesis of evil and conformity. But, Scotland voted to stay in the UK and it made perfect sense. If the (American) south had any sense, it never would have supported slavery and would have had NO reason to break the union to begin with. Please.Who are you trying to kid here? If and when there is a need to secede from the Union, I will support it. It hasn't happed yet, kiddo. By the way, if it came to succession, I doubt if we would get to vote on it. We would have to fight for it, nothing as civilized as the UK.

So if Scotland had voted to secede, do you think the UK would have been justified on using nuclear weapons on Scotland to make it change it's mind? That's pretty much what you're saying about the Confederacy.

Scotland had negotiated terms under which they could leave ahead of time. The South really didn't even try. That's the difference.

If a secession movement happened today, there'd be a preliminary negotiation period. That would head off a civil war. Realistically, no state in the Union is strong enough to go it alone and be a world power. Some might, MIGHT be able to hobble on for a few generations before collapsing on the world stage. The trend is regional consolidation. Even Scotland, had they voted to secede, would have immediately petitioned to join the EU. They wouldn't have gone it on their own and they have considerably better resources than any of the States in question.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Secession from the US won't realistically be an option until there is a true North American version of the EU that an independent state could jump into for a regional military alliance and trade alliance. Otherwise, they'd get annihilated by China, Russia, or other predatory countries in the world economy.

 

[bripat9643]

I am the nemesis of evil and conformity. But, Scotland voted to stay in the UK and it made perfect sense. If the (American) south had any sense, it never would have supported slavery and would have had NO reason to break the union to begin with. Please.Who are you trying to kid here? If and when there is a need to secede from the Union, I will support it. It hasn't happed yet, kiddo. By the way, if it came to succession, I doubt if we would get to vote on it. We would have to fight for it, nothing as civilized as the UK.

So if Scotland had voted to secede, do you think the UK would have been justified on using nuclear weapons on Scotland to make it change it's mind? That's pretty much what you're saying about the Confederacy.

Scotland had negotiated terms under which they could leave ahead of time. The South really didn't even try. That's the difference.

The difference is that Lincoln was a blood thristy tyrant. There's no reason the Confederate states should have had to negotiate. Prioor ot the Civil War most people agreed that a state could secede from the union if it wanted to. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.

If a secession movement happened today, there'd be a preliminary negotiation period. That would head off a civil war.

In other words, ask the federal government for permission to leave or it will slaughter you.

Yeah, that's civilized.

Realistically, no state in the Union is strong enough to go it alone and be a world power. Some might, MIGHT be able to hobble on for a few generations before collapsing on the world stage. The trend is regional consolidation. Even Scotland, had they voted to secede, would have immediately petitioned to join the EU. They wouldn't have gone it on their own and they have considerably better resources than any of the States in question.

Who says every state has to be a world power? Is Denmark a world power? How about Belgium? Czech Republic? Bosnia?

 

[bripat9643]

Secession from the US won't realistically be an option until there is a true North American version of the EU that an independent state could jump into for a regional military alliance and trade alliance. Otherwise, they'd get annihilated by China, Russia, or other predatory countries in the world economy.

Horseshit. Your belief in the necessity of multiple layers of government is astounding.

 

[bripat9643]

Seems like a legal nightmare to me. As to Scotland, are they going to form their own military? If so, since it's not likely to measure up to England's, what was the point of breaking away?

This whole issue seems like a petulant child's tantrum more than anything necessary.

Much like the Confederacy the idea of an independent Scotland is based much more on emotion than it is on rational thought.

How about the idea of an independent Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Chechyna, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Is that "emotional?" Wasn't the idea of the United States of America "emotional?"

The United States of America is based on much more than your contrived perception.

So was the Confederacy. The claim that it was "emotional" is idiotic.

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

Nope. It began over what Lincoln announced he would do. One of those things was to enforce the Morrill tariff. Lincoln announced he would use force against any state that refused to collect it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

America tried it 150 years ago and super-rich corporate lawyer abraham lincoln said. "Screw the will of the public. If states secede there will be less money for me and my cronies to fleece out of the citizenry. Better to have a war that kills 600,000 people."

Agree to pick up your per capita share of the national debt and I'd be willing to support secession for any state passing a resolution in an open vote with sufficient voter turnout. Past that, the State and the Fed would need to negotiate the usual minutia, such as the existing military equipment in the state, mineral rights, federally held land, etc.

State secession is never going to fly because the issues are not state-centered. The issues in play permeate and divide within states. So it's not like New York and Pennsylvania have a beef with each other or with DC, it's that there are divisions within both NY and PA, people against people.

I can't see it being so antiseptic as you imagine it could be.

 

[bripat9643]

America tried it 150 years ago and super-rich corporate lawyer abraham lincoln said. "Screw the will of the public. If states secede there will be less money for me and my cronies to fleece out of the citizenry. Better to have a war that kills 600,000 people."

Agree to pick up your per capita share of the national debt and I'd be willing to support secession for any state passing a resolution in an open vote with sufficient voter turnout. Past that, the State and the Fed would need to negotiate the usual minutia, such as the existing military equipment in the state, mineral rights, federally held land, etc.

State secession is never going to fly because the issues are not state-centered. The issues in play permeate and divide within states. So it's not like New York and Pennsylvania have a beef with each other or with DC, it's that there are divisions within both NY and PA, people against people.

I can't see it being so antiseptic as you imagine it could be.

I never claimed it would be "antiseptic." However, secession is the only way we will ever permanently defang the monster called omnipotent government. Anyone who thinks amending the Constitution will get it done is hallucinating.

 

[Discombobulated]

Much like the Confederacy the idea of an independent Scotland is based much more on emotion than it is on rational thought.

How about the idea of an independent Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Chechyna, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Is that "emotional?" Wasn't the idea of the United States of America "emotional?"

The United States of America is based on much more than your contrived perception.

So was the Confederacy. The claim that it was "emotional" is idiotic.

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

Nope. It began over what Lincoln announced he would do. One of those things was to enforce the Morrill tariff. Lincoln announced he would use force against any state that refused to collect it.

So then secession was all about tariffs.......nothing to do with slavery. Who knew that hundreds of thousands of men volunteered to fight because of tariffs. No doubt tariffs was the burning issue on everyone's mind at the time.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

You idiot. The south had been talking about secession for decades due to the onerous tariffs the north was imposing on it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

I never claimed it would be "antiseptic." However, secession is the only way we will ever permanently defang the monster called omnipotent government. Anyone who thinks amending the Constitution will get it done is hallucinating.

Yup - the federal courts simply rewrite the amendments and call it a new "interpretation". Secession is one way to keep the feds in check. A return to states rights is another way but that would require some serious balls on our state officials.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

So then secession was all about tariffs.......nothing to do with slavery.

That's about right. Tariffs and states rights is what the south was concerned with. Slavery had little to do with the CW. I proved that in an earlier post. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The difference is that Lincoln was a blood thristy tyrant. There's no reason the Confederate states should have had to negotiate. Prior to the Civil War most people agreed that a state could secede from the union if it wanted to. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.

Yes indeed. The revolutionary war was fought over the right to secede and that had just been 80 years before the CW. And everyone at the time understood that. Lincoln was a tyrant who wanted centralized power and knew the constitution was built on states rights. So he started a war that killed 600,000 people. He was a monster but history is written by the victors.

 

[Discombobulated]

[

So then secession was all about tariffs.......nothing to do with slavery.

That's about right. Tariffs and states rights is what the south was concerned with. Slavery had little to do with the CW. I proved that in an earlier post. THINK

I'm sure you believe you proved something.

 

[Discombobulated]

[

So then secession was all about tariffs.......nothing to do with slavery.

That's about right. Tariffs and states rights is what the south was concerned with. Slavery had little to do with the CW. I proved that in an earlier post. THINK

[

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

You idiot. The south had been talking about secession for decades due to the onerous tariffs the north was imposing on it.

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would be stupid enough to support your hair brained theories regarding secession.

 

[bripat9643]

[

So then secession was all about tariffs.......nothing to do with slavery.

That's about right. Tariffs and states rights is what the south was concerned with. Slavery had little to do with the CW. I proved that in an earlier post. THINK

[

The Confederacy was based on nothing but emotion. Secession began over what some people imagined Lincoln might do......and nothing more.

You idiot. The south had been talking about secession for decades due to the onerous tariffs the north was imposing on it.

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would be stupid enough to support your hair brained theories regarding secession.

Actually, there are number of highly respected historians who say exactly that.