Where do you stand on State succession?

[Katzndogz]

The division of the nation is inevitable. It will either be peaceful or violent. It would be better if it was peaceful with a considered and reasoned division.

 

[Dutch]

Since you're an anarchist, you must also concede that the individual states have no authortiy, in principle (i.e. your principles), to force their subsets,

whether it be counties, cities, townships, or individuals for that matter, to agree to follow a state out of the Union.

I agree 100%. Not only should states be able to secede, but so should counties, cities, towns and even individuals.

Finally an anarchist who admits it.

A REAL(as opposed to the fakes who call themselves) anarchist.

My hat's off to ya, Bripat.

While I am not remotely an anarchist, I can definitely understand how one might find the path of NO government whatever, appealing.

If a individual secedes what do they do, hop around in a circle all day? They would not be able to use any public roads or services.

 

[Dutch]

The division of the nation is inevitable. It will either be peaceful or violent. It would be better if it was peaceful with a considered and reasoned division.

Naw, eventually your kind will fade away and in 200 years the conservatives of that time will be bitching about the same things only society will be far more socially liberal than it is today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The division of the nation is inevitable. It will either be peaceful or violent. It would be better if it was peaceful with a considered and reasoned division.

That is possible only in your divided brain.

 

[kaz]

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or you didn't bother reading it. If you want to take a swag at actually addressing my point rather than repeating your superficial view then that would be cool. Else you can just stay willfully shallow and uninformed.

 

[Freewill]

I like the idea of amicable divorce...

and I'm currently working through such a thing with my soon-to-be-ex wife...

why shouldn't states be able to do the same thing regarding their marriage to the U.S...?

Abraham Lincoln.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Gettysburg Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.

Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.

The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Exactly. Without the ability to leave you do not have a union.

The states entered into a perpetual union, of their own accord. It's no different than you entering into a contract to lease a piece of real estate for the next 150 years. You entered on your own accord, and therefore your own free will.

No, State administrations enter a "perpetual union", or to put it right to the point, a one way street. I didn't enter into shit by contract. To say otherwise is nonsense. Neither did you or anyone else for that matter in today's world. And entering a contract by free will comes with the ability to leave the contract should the other party not uphold their end. To say they must stay no matter what is nonsense.

Also, every state has the ability to leave the union. They simply need to acquire the consent of the several states. If that doesn't work, they can execute a revolution.

No, they do not.

What you have is slavery.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to say.

No, that is exactly what it is. You can enter but you cant leave? Doesn't sound like free will to me.

How anyone could possibly advocate for force and violence against a state that wanted to peacefully leave federal control is ironically hypocritical.

People also say the same thing about Americans who oppose illegal immigrants or strict immigration policies. And I say to you now what I say to them. Stop living hundreds of years in the past. This is the 21st century. It is pointless to dictate modern day policy based on century's old political points.

Says the fucktard who claims I, or anyone else entered into a contract with the supposed union in the same breath. What a fuckin joke, dude. So, we're supposed to forget about all of the "years past" and come up to date and at the same time honor a contract over 250 years old that no one in today's world ever signed and move on???

 

[SwimExpert]

Abraham Lincoln.




Gettysburg Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.

Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.

The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.

Yeah. They just woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's stop liking the rest of the country. It'll be fun!"

The causes of the Civil War were many, and a long time in the making. To attempt to boil it down to the election of Lincoln is both absurd and intellectual sloth.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree 100%. Not only should states be able to secede, but so should counties, cities, towns and even individuals.

Finally an anarchist who admits it.

A REAL(as opposed to the fakes who call themselves) anarchist.

My hat's off to ya, Bripat.

While I am not remotely an anarchist, I can definitely understand how one might find the path of NO government whatever, appealing.

If a individual secedes what do they do, hop around in a circle all day? They would not be able to use any public roads or services.

If everyone could secede from the USA, there wouldn't be any public roads. There would only be private roads. One of the main reasons for public roads is so government can control us and keep us dependent. Government roads allow the government minions access to every square yard of your city, state, county and neighborhood. The sooner they are abolished, the better.

 

[billyerock1991]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

I think its childish ... its republicans stomping their feet and whining about what they don't like ... ... the fact that the majority of the people are Liberal/dems and we believe in a better life for all, and not just yourself is one reason republican cry about secession.... if they can't get their way 100% of the time, where they don't like the Idea of paying for anything that this country does for its people ... unless their making the military bigger them forcing their religious ways and protecting their guns ... anything else would be out of the question ... that's why we are seeing known republicans strong holds for 50 and 60 years where he people are now voting out their brand of thinking ... the people need help ... the dems/liberals are offering the help they need and want ... until the republicans pull their head out of their Idea of that they thing the people want ... they are going to keep hearing secession from these angry republicans leaders ...

 

[SwimExpert]

Says the fucktard who claims I, or anyone else entered into a contract with the supposed union in the same breath. What a fuckin joke, dude. So, we're supposed to forget about all of the "years past" and come up to date and at the same time honor a contract over 250 years old that no one in today's world ever signed and move on???

You really hated running into a sound argument that emphatically shows the failing of your position, eh? No choice in the matter, there can be only one response: Personal insults and a straw man argument. A rebuttal based on fact and logic simply cannot be found, can it?

 

[Freewill]

The Gettysburg Address is the biggest lie ever uttered by a U.S. President. If anyone was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy. Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. The entire purpose of the war was to prevent people from having the government they wanted.

Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.

The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.

Yeah. They just woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's stop liking the rest of the country. It'll be fun!"

The causes of the Civil War were many, and a long time in the making. To attempt to boil it down to the election of Lincoln is both absurd and intellectual sloth.

You didn't read well, it was over protecting the southern aristocrats slavery industry. Lincoln, being an abolitionist was merely the last straw.

What other state's right was at issue? And was that right worth charging into canister?

 

[BlindBoo]

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or you didn't bother reading it. If you want to take a swag at actually addressing my point rather than repeating your superficial view then that would be cool. Else you can just stay willfully shallow and uninformed.

Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause. Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Says the fucktard who claims I, or anyone else entered into a contract with the supposed union in the same breath. What a fuckin joke, dude. So, we're supposed to forget about all of the "years past" and come up to date and at the same time honor a contract over 250 years old that no one in today's world ever signed and move on???

You really hated running into a sound argument that emphatically shows the failing of your position, eh? No choice in the matter, there can be only one response: Personal insults and a straw man argument. A rebuttal based on fact and logic simply cannot be found, can it?

It's predictable that you would consider your argument sound, when it is literally a contradiction on its own face.

SHocking!

 

[kaz]

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or you didn't bother reading it. If you want to take a swag at actually addressing my point rather than repeating your superficial view then that would be cool. Else you can just stay willfully shallow and uninformed.

Slavery was a necessary evil in the pre-industrialized labor intense agricultural world. Since slavery was directly tied to the economy of course the Southern Gentry felt that they had to preserve it. It was not a effect, it was the cause. States rights was an excuse not a cause.

So now that you actually read my post you realize I was right...

Lincoln had no plans to take the institution of slavery from the Southern elite. Their fears were based on bold and often told lies. Kind of like todays' fear-mongering of the right-wing talking heads.

Gotta get that little Marxist propaganda in there. I'll give you that one.

 

[bripat9643]

Since you're an anarchist, you must also concede that the individual states have no authortiy, in principle (i.e. your principles), to force their subsets,

whether it be counties, cities, townships, or individuals for that matter, to agree to follow a state out of the Union.

I agree 100%. Not only should states be able to secede, but so should counties, cities, towns and even individuals.

Finally an anarchist who admits it.

A REAL(as opposed to the fakes who call themselves) anarchist.

My hat's off to ya, Bripat.

While I am not remotely an anarchist, I can definitely understand how one might find the path of NO government whatever, appealing.

I think I've probably posted the fact about 1000 times already. I have always said that the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. There's nothing good about government.

 

[Pogo]

When Texas secedes, does it return the 3.8 billion it took from TARP?
Speaking of which, why did Texas accept the bail-out in the first place?

Didn't all the firms receiving TARP money repay it? Is the federal government going to refund all the money Texans have paid in federal income tax?

Big talk Texas took the money (Texas was in major debt).
So where's the money?
Please refrain from posing questions that detract from the direct question.
A question which I wouldn't have asked if every Texan didn't possess a tremendous ego based on false State of Texas assumptions.

In the late '50s when Alaska was about to become statified, Texans were moaning and groaning, crying the blues that Texas would no longer be the biggest lump in the britches. Alaskans said, "you boys pipe down, or we'll cut Alaska in two and make you the third largest state".

That shut 'em up.

A Texan told me that.

 

[bripat9643]

Says the fucktard who claims I, or anyone else entered into a contract with the supposed union in the same breath. What a fuckin joke, dude. So, we're supposed to forget about all of the "years past" and come up to date and at the same time honor a contract over 250 years old that no one in today's world ever signed and move on???

You really hated running into a sound argument that emphatically shows the failing of your position, eh? No choice in the matter, there can be only one response: Personal insults and a straw man argument. A rebuttal based on fact and logic simply cannot be found, can it?

He's right, "sound" is the last word I would use to describe your argument. You can't tell someone to come "up to date" and then insist they are bound by a so-called "contract" that is 250 years old. At least, you can't if you don't want to sound like someone who lacks the ability to commit logic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

Normally, I would write your statement off as the meandering of an ignorant and uneducated fool - but I'm going to call bullshit because I suspect you know your statement is shit, and made it for partisan reasons.

The agrarian South had a nearly feudal structure, with a landed gentry wielding enormous political and economic power, while the majority lived as virtual serfs. The fact that 90% of whites in the Antebellum South lived in abject poverty, makes the claim of slavery as a root cause utterly absurd. Only the larger land owners could afford slaves.

The greater fear of the serf class was the competition posed by slaves. Often it was free whites who suffered most from slavery, as the agricultural jobs were filled by slaves, leaving them to literally starve to death.

The Antebellum South was not a pretty place for most people, black and white.

Contrast this with the North that was well into the industrial revolution. Despite the bullshit the leftists spew, industry was the salvation of the masses. Suddenly, the question of survival no longer depended on a healthy crop, but instead just labor at a factory. These masses became consumers who increased the fortunes of the remaining agrarian community in the North. To make matters worse, animosity toward the South, by the North, led to the importation of goods for manufacture from Europe. Particularly cotton, which was imported from France. The North was waging a form of economic warfare on the South long before the shooting war.

The socioeconomic situation in the Antebellum South was not viable, if left alone, it was destined to collapse. This went way beyond slavery, into the structure of the states, who could not sustain the existing infrastructure.

The war was between a fading agrarian society structured into virtual feudalism, and an emerging industrial powerhouse. Slavery was at best an ancillary issue.

 

[SwimExpert]

Really you sound like the poor men who charged into canister fire at Gettysburg. Men talked into a war by the rich southern democrat aristocrats. Why? To protect their 4 billion dollar slavery industry. Anyone who claims that the war was about freedom either is deluding themselves, doesn't know the definitions, or think black men are not men.

The war was about nothing but slavery it is in their state constitution and their reasoning for seceding. As soon as an abolitionists president was elected the states parted company it wasn't for any other reason.

Yeah. They just woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's stop liking the rest of the country. It'll be fun!"

The causes of the Civil War were many, and a long time in the making. To attempt to boil it down to the election of Lincoln is both absurd and intellectual sloth.

You didn't read well, it was over protecting the southern aristocrats slavery industry. Lincoln, being an abolitionist was merely the last straw.

What other state's right was at issue? And was that right worth charging into canister?

You didn't read well.