Secession Is Happening?

[SicEmBaylor]

If only...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-paul-good-news-that-secession-is-happening#.meqNxoDxE

I couldn't be a bigger advocate for secession than I already am. This country is a diseased leviathan that needs to be taken out back and shot. I absolutely love and adore the principles we were founded upon and strict Constitutionalism, but that died long ago when the states were stripped of their sovereignty.

[okie52]

Hmmm, it'd be interesting to see how the states would realign themselves.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hmmm, it'd be interesting to see how the states would realign themselves.

Don't know; don't care. I'm moving to the RPT.

[okie52]

RPT?

[SicEmBaylor]

RPT?

Republic of Texas. I sincerely hope Oklahoma becomes a state within.

[Sooner8th]

Republic of Texas. I sincerely hope Oklahoma becomes a state within.Please explain to me the love of secession.

[okie52]

Republic of Texas. I sincerely hope Oklahoma becomes a state within.

Well recruiting would get easier.

[SicEmBaylor]

Please explain to me the love of secession.

I think the Constitution works only when the Constitution is properly followed which it hasn't been for a long time. It was designed in such a way that the individual states could and should have been laboratories for social change free to craft domestic policy consistent with the beliefs an desires of its citizenry as expressed through the various state legislatures. The Federal government should only have involved itself in those Constitutionally enumerated powers -- mainly dealing with (real) interstate commerce issues, settling interstate disputes, coining money, providing for a national defense, and conducting diplomacy.

We have always been a very diverse country with a diverse population even at our inception. The colonies were chartered by different people of different religions who all sought to carve out a piece of land governed in a way of their own choosing. It's why the states relinquished only those powers that no individual state could reasonably exercise alone (conducting diplomacy, for example) -- all other powers and sovereign rights were reserved unto themselves.

The political discourse in this country has become toxic -- that's evident enough on this forum. It's toxic because over the last 150 years the Federal government has encroached on the rights of the states forcing a 'one size fits all' policy on the entire Union alienating liberal, moderate, and conservative states alike. Regardless of which party has control of the Federal government, half the country is going to be deeply divided in opposition. This is an issue that wouldn't exist had the Federal government stayed within its Constitutional restraints.

If California wants to have abortion on demand, provide drug needles to middle school students, and implement a $40/hr minimum wage with a top income tax bracket rate of 98% then that is entirely their business. If a liberal state can find a way to implement a well run and cost effective single-payer healthcare system for its citizens then perhaps it would have provided a blueprint for other states to follow; unfortunately, that's effectively (though not legally, of course) prohibitive.

I'm an anti-nationalist in the sense that I'm a sectionalist/regionalist. I have no love or affinity for my fellow countrymen in Minnesota or Maine or other states that are so different from my own. I believe the only way to return to a system of limited government and individual liberty is for the states to either start nullifing unconstitutional law and refusing to comply OR secede. Either is fine with me. I'd enjoy seeing Oklahoma and Texas joined together or with a handful of other like-minded states.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Any secession will result in tremendous civil unrest and economic chaos. Of course, many different things can cause that to happen, and we could well find ourselves facing that.

[SicEmBaylor]

Any secession will result in tremendous civil unrest and economic chaos. Of course, many different things can cause that to happen, and we could well find ourselves facing that.

Secession. Hopefully in peace; armed if necessary.

[TVKaleen]

Yeah. Studied the last Secession movement.. didn't like it.. too many people dead at the end.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah. Studied the last Secession movement.. didn't like it.. too many people dead at the end.

That was the fault of the Union, not ours. Like I said, there's nothing stopping a peaceful and amicable separation. Even the Soviet Union broke apart without bloodshed.

[TVKaleen]

The Soviet Union was a construct forged out of violent revolution with little more than 100 years of history behind it. We are a nation of 200+ years forged peacefully and confirmed by holding off the counter revolution which had the last and only insurrection put down. And we were not right. We can claim it was state's rights vs. nationalism all we want but the truth of it was we were slavers in the south and we loved us some Statism until the State held a differing opinion from us. There is a romanticism about the old South. The Stars and bars, gentlemen warriors, southern belles, plantations and the cry of state's rights. Hell I even believe in state's rights but the south as a whole didn't believe in state's rights until Lincoln took office. And the firing on Fort Sumter was the first act of overt aggression.

Also unlike what people wish to believe, the industrial revolution was not killing slavery. The invention of the cotton gin actually made slavery profitable again. The only way the barbaric practice was going away was by violence. Time and time again, our ancestors (as I am assuming that you and I are both from the South) fought tooth and nail to maintain a control over their slaves. No one will willingly give up their "property" even if holding such "property" is patently immoral. And if you have studied your history you will know from the Haitian example and the example of the Zanj rebellion in Persia, that the practice of plantation slavery leads to violent revolt by those being held. In the case of Haiti, it led to 3000 to 5000 French men, women, and children being exterminated like vermin. In the case of Persia it led to a 15 year+ rebellion and an army 500,000 strong existing in their borders but not under their control.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Soviet Union was a construct forged out of violent revolution with little more than 100 years of history behind it. We are a nation of 200+ years forged peacefully and confirmed by holding off the counter revolution which had the last and only insurrection put down. And we were not right. We can claim it was state's rights vs. nationalism all we want but the truth of it was we were slavers in the south and we loved us some Statism until the State held a differing opinion from us. There is a romanticism about the old South. The Stars and bars, gentlemen warriors, southern belles, plantations and the cry of state's rights. Hell I even believe in state's rights but the south as a whole didn't believe in state's rights until Lincoln took office. And the firing on Fort Sumter was the first act of overt aggression.

Also unlike what people wish to believe, the industrial revolution was not killing slavery. The invention of the cotton gin actually made slavery profitable again. The only way the barbaric practice was going away was by violence. Time and time again, our ancestors (as I am assuming that you and I are both from the South) fought tooth and nail to maintain a control over their slaves. No one will willingly give up their "property" even if holding such "property" is patently immoral. And if you have studied your history you will know from the Haitian example and the example of the Zanj rebellion in Persia, that the practice of plantation slavery leads to violent revolt by those being held. In the case of Haiti, it led to 3000 to 5000 French men, women, and children being exterminated like vermin. In the case of Persia it led to a 15 year+ rebellion and an army 500,000 strong existing in their borders but not under their control.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will preface my statements by acknowledging that I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and an absolute believer in the right of secession and justness of the southern cause. Having said that, let me just make the following points/contentions about the war and the politics that led to the outbreak of war.

1) Let's get this out of the way immediately: Slavery was, by far, the single most important and determining factor that led to the decision to secede by the southern states. There is absolutely no denying that. Slavery was the most important issue and formed the apex of the south's grievances with the north.

2)Slavery was a component of states' rights. Slavery was neither illegal nor did the United States Constitution ban its practice or enumerate a power to the Federal government to regulate the institution of slavery outside of regulating the interstate trafficking of slaves; therefore, slavery was quite clearly a state issue falling under the 10th Amendment.

3)Slavery was certainly not the only issue with which the south found cause for disagreement with the north and the Union. Northern industrialists and capitalists who long had the Whigs in their pocket also had their Republican successors in their pocket as well. Northern banking interests, capitalists, and industrialists were resentful of the fact that south could get by with using slave labor. The south had no industrial base to speak of, so the south would ship their raw products to factories in the north and factories in Great Britain and France to turn into finished products. In turn, the south favored free-trade agreements with those nations since they were having to pay an export tax to send their raw materials overseas and an import tax on the finished products. The north favored these tariffs which protected northern factories. So, imagine if you will, the southern reaction to northerners favoring the tariff while threatening the institution of slavery. The south saw this as a threat to their entire economy, their entire society, and as a means for the northern states to suppress the southern states. Likewise, midwestern farmers resented the competition with slave labor for the very same reasons.

4)States evolved from their colonial predecessors. Before we were a nation, colonies were formed by groups of individuals receiving a charter from the Crown to establish a colony in the New World under specific terms and conditions. They arose independently and were, under the terms of their charters, relatively free to govern their own affairs. The violation of the terms of these colonial charters was a contributing factor to the Revolution.

5)The United States is predicated upon the belief that a people have a right to choose their own government. We fought a Revolution justified with the declared reasoning that people, any people, have the right to abolish and/or sever ties with the existing government and reform/establish a new government of their own choosing. The colonies declared their independence as sovereign colonies organized under their colonial charters, and they affiliated themselves with one another for the purpose of separating from Great Britain. They then, as separate sovereign entities, joined together in national unity organized under the Articles of Confederation ceding only that sovereignty they wished to delegate to a central authority.

6)Weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation (namely issues arising from extraditing debtors across state lines) led the individual states to send delegates to convention to amend the Articles of Confederation; the decision was made to hold what became the Constitutional Convention concurrently with the Congress organized under the Articles of Confederation. We must be clear here -- the Congress, the government of the United States, did not call for or organized the Constitutional Convention. The individual states decided to do so independently, and they went to great lengths to keep their proceedings secret from the Congress leading to some interesting cloak-and-dagger incidents with the former trying to gain insight into the latter.

7)The individual states, at convention, wrote a new Constitution delegating only a small fraction of their sovereignty to the Federal state. The powers of this government were specific, limited, and clearly enumerated in: Articles I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 and 3, and Article III. The Constitution did not enumerate a power to the centralized government to regulate slavery; however, the Interstate Commerce Clause did give them authority to regulate the import of slaves and the interstate trafficking of slaves. The Constitution did not provide the central government with the authority to decide when a state may leave the union; therefore, under the 10th Amendment, that power is vested with the individual states. Furthermore, the right and sovereignty of the states was never questioned at the Constitutional Convention nor was there ever any discussion that entering the Constitutional compact meant individual states were forever bound to remain in that Union under the force of arms. Had most states known, at the time, that entering the compact meant no state could leave under the threat of coercion and violence by the Federal government -- it’s unlikely most (if not all) would have rejected the Constitution.

8)Regarding the grievances of the southern states that led to secession, they are absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether a state *can* secede regardless of whether one believes in the reasons or the wisdom of the decision. The most fundamental foundational principle in this nation is that a people have the right to abolish existing political ties and form a new government of their own choosing. It was the view of the southern states that remaining in the Union was no longer the best way to secure the future for its citizen; therefore, they exercised their absolute and fundamental sovereign right to exit the Union they themselves created and freely entered into. The Constitution is, if nothing else, a contract between states. The terms of that contract, in the southern view, were breached which led to secession.

9)No person in American history could ever or has ever suggested that the goal of the Confederate states was to destroy the American Union via force of arms or otherwise. There was no intention of invading or making war upon the Union states. Every southerner and every Confederate politician made it clear their desire was to leave peacefully and be left alone. Leaving the Union, contrary to both period northern rhetoric and contemporary orthodoxy, did not equate to destroying the Union. The Union would have been smaller, to be sure, but those northern states desiring to remain in that compact were perfectly free to do so.

10)When a sovereign state left the union, it became an independent political entity free to remain independent or enter a new compact among other independent and sovereign political entities. Any United States troops or possessions sitting on sovereign territory without the permission of the sovereign host state did so both illegally and as a passive-aggressive act of war. The reinforcement of those garrisons was an act of war. The calling of troops to invade and ‘quell’ the rebellion was an act of war. The Lincoln Administration did all three. The southern states may have fired the first shots, but the war was most certainly started and sparked by the Lincoln Administration’s failure to peacefully evacuate its troops from sovereign southern territory.

11)Lincoln made it clear time and time again that the purpose of the war was to preserve the existing Union. The calling of troops was done so with the war-goal of preserving the Union. Very few in the Union went to war with the intention of freeing the slaves, and some states may have revolted or even seceded if that had been a war aim of the Lincoln administration. The triggering cause of secession may have been slavery, but the Union did not go to war over the issue of slavery; the Union went to war over the issue of secession.

12)The myth that the Union was full of anti-slavery zealots with modern notions of racial harmony and that the Union army was on an anti-slavery crusade is pure revisionist history and an absolute myth. The north were as racists as most people believe the southern states to be. After the war, northern factory workers resented the influx of former slaves taking their jobs. Conditions in northern factories were as bad, if not worse, than conditions on a southern plantation. Furthermore, the housing and care of the average northern factory worker was below the conditions and standards of the average slave quarters. Lincoln himself, on numerous occasions, spoke words that would be equated with the absolute worst sort of white supremacist in contemporary times.

13)The result of the War Between the States on the United States Constitution was absolutely disastrous. The sovereign states delegated only a limited amount of their sovereignty to the national state and reserved all other rights and privileges unto itself. The Constitution was a beautifully crafted and brilliantly balanced document that ensured every power had a check, every branch had a check, and the power between state and Federal was checked. The Federal government was seen from the very beginning as an institution crafted by the states in which the states could jointly govern. This is evident when one looks at Congress. The House of Representatives were the directly-elected representatives of the people; Senators represented the interests of the states as whole political entities and were elected by the various state legislatures. Thus, the Congress balanced the interests of the people with the interests of the states. The President was tasked with executing the will of the people and of the states as expressed by the actions of Congress. The War Between the States destroyed this balance by placing the Federal government in a position of supreme centralized power over the states and by the illegal and unconstitutional ratification of the 14th Amendment. It laid the foundation for the increasing and encroaching power of the centralized Federal government for the next 150 years -- a situation we still, to this day, struggle with. It’s a situation that even liberals and progressives should lament. The individual states were intended to be laboratories of social change. Instead, we have an incredibly large and very diverse population governed by a single centralized authority with ‘one size fits all’ law. Our states never relinquished the power over the domestic affairs of its citizenry to the centralized states -- it was taken from them by Lincoln as a result of the War Between the States. Several northern governors recognized this and the potential consequences as early as the first shots.

[okie52]

Cliff Notes?

[FaninAma]

The Union was never intended to be held together by force.

I beleive a defacto secession will take place via nullification as more and more states simply ignore federal mandates.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

since slavery is a long past problem, I would be happy if the national government's continued march toward authoritarian control would stop and begin reversing itself, having the government limit itself to those activities it is supposed to conduct.

[FaninAma]

The progressive democrats led by Obama have added the main impetus in this movement through their selective enforcement of laws. I actually agree with the right of Colorado to pass laws legalizing marijuana. I think it is a stupid decision but I think they have the right to do it. However, it is undeniable that the new laws nullify existing federal drug statutes that classify marijuana as a Class I drug which is the most controlled/monitored classification a drug can have and which means that it should not be sold in this country.

[Sooner8th]

I think the Constitution works only when the Constitution is properly followed which it hasn't been for a long time. It was designed in such a way that the individual states could and should have been laboratories for social change free to craft domestic policy consistent with the beliefs an desires of its citizenry as expressed through the various state legislatures. The Federal government should only have involved itself in those Constitutionally enumerated powers -- mainly dealing with (real) interstate commerce issues, settling interstate disputes, coining money, providing for a national defense, and conducting diplomacy. We have always been a very diverse country with a diverse population even at our inception. The colonies were chartered by different people of different religions who all sought to carve out a piece of land governed in a way of their own choosing. It's why the states relinquished only those powers that no individual state could reasonably exercise alone (conducting diplomacy, for example) -- all other powers and sovereign rights were reserved unto themselves.The political discourse in this country has become toxic -- that's evident enough on this forum. It's toxic because over the last 150 years the Federal government has encroached on the rights of the states forcing a 'one size fits all' policy on the entire Union alienating liberal, moderate, and conservative states alike. Regardless of which party has control of the Federal government, half the country is going to be deeply divided in opposition. This is an issue that wouldn't exist had the Federal government stayed within its Constitutional restraints.If California wants to have abortion on demand, provide drug needles to middle school students, and implement a $40/hr minimum wage with a top income tax bracket rate of 98% then that is entirely their business. If a liberal state can find a way to implement a well run and cost effective single-payer healthcare system for its citizens then perhaps it would have provided a blueprint for other states to follow; unfortunately, that's effectively (though not legally, of course) prohibitive. I'm an anti-nationalist in the sense that I'm a sectionalist/regionalist. I have no love or affinity for my fellow countrymen in Minnesota or Maine or other states that are so different from my own. I believe the only way to return to a system of limited government and individual liberty is for the states to either start nullifing unconstitutional law and refusing to comply OR secede. Either is fine with me. I'd enjoy seeing Oklahoma and Texas joined together or with a handful of other like-minded states.Even though we have wildly different views and I think your views are un-American, I do have some respect for you. Mainly because you don't just follow the latest rightwingnut talking point, ginning you up into OUTRAGE over the latest stupid thing. Making up stuff in the constitution, ignoring the parts you don't like and the ability to secede have become part of far-rightwingnut orthodoxy and for anyone to win a primary in the republican party they need to at the very least pay lip service to it. We are the United States of America. Not the loosely affiliated, come and go as you please separate nation/states. For a group of people who claim they are history experts and buffs, you and they always seem to forget and/or are confused with the founding of our country being July 4, 1776. The United States of America was actually founded on September 13, 1788 when the Continental Congress passed a resolution to put the new Constitution into operation with eleven states with North Carolina and Rhode Island ratifying by May 1790. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution We had the same form of government under the Articles of Confederation which turned out to be a disaster. The reason for that disaster is some states didn't want to pay taxes to pay off the debt incurred by Continental Congress to wage war, we call it the Revolutionary War, against Britain to win the very freedom they were now enjoying. So our founding fathers knew that form of government isn't going to work and we needed a stronger central government. One that states couldn't ignore when they felt like it. Even the Articles of Confederation Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation There is no mechanism for leaving the union. It is like joining the no longer a virgin club, the ignorance and stupidity of bristol palin not withstanding, once you join there is no backing out. The federal government is the baseline for our rights. States are not at liberty to take those rights away. Not being taxed is not a right. You have representation. In our country - the founding tenets are being able to pick our own leaders along and the majority rules, which of course is true everywhere in America except for the US senate. Now I will say things like the electoral college, gerrymandered house districts and each state having two senators regardless of the number of constituents they have don't always lead to that. It does give more power to smaller states, but it shouldn't be taken to mean that the majority still should rule. Secession is treason. If you don't like America - then leave. All of this talk about states rights is just code taking rights away from other people and not wanting to pay taxes.

[Sooner8th]

The Union was never intended to be held together by force. I beleive a defacto secession will take place via nullification as more and more states simply ignore federal mandates.Nullification simply does not exist. This is nothing more that a replay of segregation in the sixties.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The progressive democrats led by Obama have added the main impetus in this movement through their selective enforcement of laws. I actually agree with the right of Colorado to pass laws legalizing marijuana. I think it is a stupid decision but I think they have the right to do it. However, it is undeniable that the new laws nullify existing federal drug statutes that classify marijuana as a Class I drug which is the most controlled/monitored classification a drug can have and which means that it should not be sold in this country.Bill Clinton started the rush toward unlawful behavior IMO with all his illegal fundraising and lying, his abuse of women and probable rape were all events that would have driven any republican out of office without any doubt. But, Clinton even got away with murder most likely(Ron Brown and James MacDougal, not to mention the list of Arkancides), and the Media and democrats were in awe of how untouchable he was, instead of coming down on him like they should have

[Sooner8th]

Bill Clinton started the rush toward unlawful behavior IMO with all his illegal fundraising and lying, his abuse of women and probable rape were all events that would have driven any republican out of office without any doubt. But, Clinton even got away with murder most likely(Ron Brown and James MacDougal, not to mention the list of Arkancides), and the Media and democrats were in awe of how untouchable he was, instead of coming down on him like they should haveUnfvckingbelievable you are accusing a former president of the untied states of rape and murder? You forgot vince foster. It is people like you who are ruining our country. Tell me where was obama born?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unfvckingbelievable you are accusing a former president of the untied states of rape and murder? You forgot vince foster. It is people like you who are ruining our country. Tell me where was obama born?under his socialist mom's vajayjay, Fidel.

[Sooner8th]

under his socialist mom's vajayjay, Fidel.Answer the question rush - where on the planet was obama born?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Phukcewe, Vladimir:fatigue:

[Sooner8th]

Phukcew, VladimirGod you are a dumbsh!t. It's Phukaew. Stop being a coward and tell me where you think he was born.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

nairobi hawaii, USA

Where do you s'pose He was born, Che?:fatigue:

[hawaii 5-0]

I guess the Pledge of Allegiance is just words to some of you.

.....and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

( unless you're black, or gay, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a Native American, or have slanted eyes, or a birth defect)


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Bill Clinton started the rush toward unlawful behavior



Anyone remember St. Ronnie and his selling of weapons to Iran ?


And to top it off they made the fall guy Ollie North out to be some kinda Hero.

Now that takes balls.


5-0

[SoonerProphet]

Anyone remember St. Ronnie and his selling of weapons to Iran ?


And to top it off they made the fall guy Ollie North out to be some kinda Hero.

Now that takes balls.


5-0

Teapot Dome, Watergate, etc...really naive, or historical ignorance, to lay the blame on a singular party.

[FaninAma]

Nullification simply does not exist. This is nothing more that a replay of segregation in the sixties.
So ignoring the federal statutes on marijuana is just like segregation in the sixties? Cool. There will be a lot of pissed off hippies in Boulder when they learn that.

[hawaii 5-0]

Teapot Dome, Watergate, etc...really naive, or historical ignorance, to lay the blame on a singular party.


Yeah all sides been doing it. Politics as usual.

5-0

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

better stick to music, Karl

[hawaii 5-0]

better stick to music, Karl


"Gotta Revolution"


5-0

[FaninAma]

I guess the Pledge of Allegiance is just words to some of you.

.....and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

( unless you're black, or gay, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a Native American, or have slanted eyes, or a birth defect)


5-0
C'mon 5-0, you're better than that....I thought.

[Sooner8th]

nairobi hawaii, USAWhere do you s'pose He was born, Che?:fatigue:You think you're clever and funny - you are just another sad conservative/republican. Answer it - where was he born.

[FaninAma]

You think you're clever and funny - you are just another sad conservative/republican. Answer it - where was he born.

Unless his mother renounced her US citizenship it doesn't matter where he was born.

i do think if Obama would unseal all of his college and employment records we could clear all of this mess up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You think you're clever and funny - you are just another sad conservative/republican. Answer it - where was he born.pardon me meow saytongue, but I did, and I asked YOU where you think He was born.




and, I don't really care if you answer me or not. So, please take your silly sh*t elsewhere.

[hawaii 5-0]

C'mon 5-0, you're better than that....I thought.


Never said I was better than anyone, never thought it. For the record.

However, I do think that some people like to assume they have an upper hand. And try to prove it daily.

Me, I'm just a blue collar guy tryin' to get by.


So......what part of Indivisible to you disagree with?


5-0

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i do think if Obama would unseal all of his college and employment records we could clear all of this mess up.his real birthplace?

[hawaii 5-0]

Sorry I got sucked into this drivel.

Carry on.


5-0

[East Coast Bias]

I think all of this is rooted in painting the government as the boogie man. All of the folks that think the states are the answer still prefer to have their meat inspected, airspace controlled and enjoy the highways.In many cases the states have not shown they can do any better, Kansas comes to mind. Usually about now someone dredges up all the tables that show which states take more US tax dollars than they contribute. That is an eye opener.....

[okie52]

Well then all of those states that are the "givers" should be happy to see the "takers" make an exit.

[FaninAma]

his real birthplace?

I think we find out if Obama applied as a foreign national for benefical consideration during the acceptance phase of his application.

I do not understand the sealing of the records if it was just a grade issue. But once again his fanboys in the media decided this was a non-issue.

[FaninAma]

Never said I was better than anyone, never thought it. For the record.

However, I do think that some people like to assume they have an upper hand. And try to prove it daily.

Me, I'm just a blue collar guy tryin' to get by.


So......what part of Indivisible to you disagree with?


5-0

You do realize the Pledge of Allegiance was written after the Civil War and wasn't adopted by Congress until 1942, well after Lincoln assasinated the right of secession. You see what I did there, right?

[FaninAma]

I think all of this is rooted in painting the government as the boogie man. All of the folks that think the states are the answer still prefer to have their meat inspected, airspace controlled and enjoy the highways.In many cases the states have not shown they can do any better, Kansas comes to mind. Usually about now someone dredges up all the tables that show which states take more US tax dollars than they contribute. That is an eye opener.....

You do realize this strawman argument is erroneously used to show the red states receive more welfare when in fact it shows all federal expenditures including for the military and highways. Take a quick gander at the map and tell us which states haqve most of the military bases and which states have more miles of federal interstate highway systems.

BTW, here is the most up-to-date statistics for federal state tax collections v. federal tax receipts. Oklahoma, for the most part, has been a net giver. And if you look at the 2013 statistics there are quite a few blue states in the bottom half(i.e. net takers). Also the blue states tend to spend much more per capita via government benefits and run larger stagte deficits than red states. I assume their high state taxes help account for some of the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Oh, one other thing. Where do you think the segment of our population that receives more government assistance than any other segment like to move when they retire(i.e. seniors)? That's right....the South.

[Sooner8th]

You do realize this strawman argument is erroneously used to show the red states receive more welfare when in fact it shows all federal expenditures including for the military and highways. Take a quick gander at the map and tell us which states haqve most of the military bases and which states have more miles of federal interstate highway systems.BTW, here is the most up-to-date statistics for federal state tax collections v. federal tax receipts. Oklahoma, for the most part, has been a net giver. And if you look at the 2013 statistics there are quite a few blue states in the bottom half(i.e. net takers). Also the blue states tend to spend much more per capita via government benefits and run larger stagte deficits than red states. I assume their high state taxes help account for some of the difference.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_stateOh, one other thing. Where do you think the segment of our population that receives more government assistance than any other segment like to move when they retire(i.e. seniors)? That's right....the South.There is not straw man here. It is data. Federal expenditures TOTAL federal income TOTAL. Except for Texas red states have fewer people than blue states. Should Mississippi or alabama have same amount of highways are new york or california? You keep saying seniors - Arizona and Florida is where most retire to. Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana have welfare because they are poor states.

[SicEmBaylor]

I guess the Pledge of Allegiance is just words to some of you.

.....and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

( unless you're black, or gay, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a Native American, or have slanted eyes, or a birth defect)


5-0

The pledge was written by a post-war Socialist who included the words 'indivisible' because he wanted people to pledge their undying devotion to the national state. I have a lot of issues with the Pledge, but I ALWAYS refuse to say the words 'indivisible.' Saying the Union is indivisible is counter to our most cherished Revolutionary principles.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The pledge was written by a post-war Socialist who included the words 'indivisible' because he wanted people to pledge their undying devotion to the national state. I have a lot of issues with the Pledge, but I ALWAYS refuse to say the words 'indivisible.' Saying the Union is indivisible is counter to our most cherished Revolutionary principles.Indivisible to me has brought to mind outside, non-domestic forces endeavoring to divide up the country. I never have thought it suggested that a state or political unit might not be allowed to rebel against a domestic government gone haywire.

[SicEmBaylor]

Indivisible to me has brought to mind outside, non-domestic forces endeavoring to divide up the country. I never have thought it suggested that a state or political unit might not be allowed to rebel against a domestic government gone haywire.

Nein. It was written in the immediate post-Civil War period by a Union socialist who created the Pledge for the specific purpose of ensuring people remained loyal, first and foremost, to the Federal state.

[Sooner8th]

Nein. It was written in the immediate post-Civil War period by a Union socialist who created the Pledge for the specific purpose of ensuring people remained loyal, first and foremost, to the Federal state.You mean to the UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA?

[SicEmBaylor]

You mean to the UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA?

Colonies pre-date the states. The states pre-date the United States. The states created the Federal government. Loyalty in this country starts with one's own family, then local community, then state, then the Federal government (which really is just a multi-state governing body) dead last.

My loyalty to the United States does not supersede anything else. You're such a "Merica, Fvck Yeah!" nationalist, 8th. ;)

[TAFBSooner]

In the interest of full disclosure, I will preface my statements by acknowledging that I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and an absolute believer in the right of secession and justness of the southern cause. Having said that, let me just make the following points/contentions about the war and the politics that led to the outbreak of war.

1) Let's get this out of the way immediately: Slavery was, by far, the single most important and determining factor that led to the decision to secede by the southern states. There is absolutely no denying that. Slavery was the most important issue and formed the apex of the south's grievances with the north.

2)Slavery was a component of states' rights. Slavery was neither illegal nor did the United States Constitution ban its practice or enumerate a power to the Federal government to regulate the institution of slavery outside of regulating the interstate trafficking of slaves; therefore, slavery was quite clearly a state issue falling under the 10th Amendment.

3)Slavery was certainly not the only issue with which the south found cause for disagreement with the north and the Union. Northern industrialists and capitalists who long had the Whigs in their pocket also had their Republican successors in their pocket as well. Northern banking interests, capitalists, and industrialists were resentful of the fact that south could get by with using slave labor. The south had no industrial base to speak of, so the south would ship their raw products to factories in the north and factories in Great Britain and France to turn into finished products. In turn, the south favored free-trade agreements with those nations since they were having to pay an export tax to send their raw materials overseas and an import tax on the finished products. The north favored these tariffs which protected northern factories. So, imagine if you will, the southern reaction to northerners favoring the tariff while threatening the institution of slavery. The south saw this as a threat to their entire economy, their entire society, and as a means for the northern states to suppress the southern states. Likewise, midwestern farmers resented the competition with slave labor for the very same reasons.

4)States evolved from their colonial predecessors. Before we were a nation, colonies were formed by groups of individuals receiving a charter from the Crown to establish a colony in the New World under specific terms and conditions. They arose independently and were, under the terms of their charters, relatively free to govern their own affairs. The violation of the terms of these colonial charters was a contributing factor to the Revolution.

5)The United States is predicated upon the belief that a people have a right to choose their own government. We fought a Revolution justified with the declared reasoning that people, any people, have the right to abolish and/or sever ties with the existing government and reform/establish a new government of their own choosing. The colonies declared their independence as sovereign colonies organized under their colonial charters, and they affiliated themselves with one another for the purpose of separating from Great Britain. They then, as separate sovereign entities, joined together in national unity organized under the Articles of Confederation ceding only that sovereignty they wished to delegate to a central authority.

6)Weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation (namely issues arising from extraditing debtors across state lines) led the individual states to send delegates to convention to amend the Articles of Confederation; the decision was made to hold what became the Constitutional Convention concurrently with the Congress organized under the Articles of Confederation. We must be clear here -- the Congress, the government of the United States, did not call for or organized the Constitutional Convention. The individual states decided to do so independently, and they went to great lengths to keep their proceedings secret from the Congress leading to some interesting cloak-and-dagger incidents with the former trying to gain insight into the latter.

7)The individual states, at convention, wrote a new Constitution delegating only a small fraction of their sovereignty to the Federal state. The powers of this government were specific, limited, and clearly enumerated in: Articles I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 and 3, and Article III. The Constitution did not enumerate a power to the centralized government to regulate slavery; however, the Interstate Commerce Clause did give them authority to regulate the import of slaves and the interstate trafficking of slaves. The Constitution did not provide the central government with the authority to decide when a state may leave the union; therefore, under the 10th Amendment, that power is vested with the individual states. Furthermore, the right and sovereignty of the states was never questioned at the Constitutional Convention nor was there ever any discussion that entering the Constitutional compact meant individual states were forever bound to remain in that Union under the force of arms. Had most states known, at the time, that entering the compact meant no state could leave under the threat of coercion and violence by the Federal government -- it’s unlikely most (if not all) would have rejected the Constitution.

8)Regarding the grievances of the southern states that led to secession, they are absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether a state *can* secede regardless of whether one believes in the reasons or the wisdom of the decision. The most fundamental foundational principle in this nation is that a people have the right to abolish existing political ties and form a new government of their own choosing. It was the view of the southern states that remaining in the Union was no longer the best way to secure the future for its citizen; therefore, they exercised their absolute and fundamental sovereign right to exit the Union they themselves created and freely entered into. The Constitution is, if nothing else, a contract between states. The terms of that contract, in the southern view, were breached which led to secession.

9)No person in American history could ever or has ever suggested that the goal of the Confederate states was to destroy the American Union via force of arms or otherwise. There was no intention of invading or making war upon the Union states. Every southerner and every Confederate politician made it clear their desire was to leave peacefully and be left alone. Leaving the Union, contrary to both period northern rhetoric and contemporary orthodoxy, did not equate to destroying the Union. The Union would have been smaller, to be sure, but those northern states desiring to remain in that compact were perfectly free to do so.

10)When a sovereign state left the union, it became an independent political entity free to remain independent or enter a new compact among other independent and sovereign political entities. Any United States troops or possessions sitting on sovereign territory without the permission of the sovereign host state did so both illegally and as a passive-aggressive act of war. The reinforcement of those garrisons was an act of war. The calling of troops to invade and ‘quell’ the rebellion was an act of war. The Lincoln Administration did all three. The southern states may have fired the first shots, but the war was most certainly started and sparked by the Lincoln Administration’s failure to peacefully evacuate its troops from sovereign southern territory.

11)Lincoln made it clear time and time again that the purpose of the war was to preserve the existing Union. The calling of troops was done so with the war-goal of preserving the Union. Very few in the Union went to war with the intention of freeing the slaves, and some states may have revolted or even seceded if that had been a war aim of the Lincoln administration. The triggering cause of secession may have been slavery, but the Union did not go to war over the issue of slavery; the Union went to war over the issue of secession.

12)The myth that the Union was full of anti-slavery zealots with modern notions of racial harmony and that the Union army was on an anti-slavery crusade is pure revisionist history and an absolute myth. The north were as racists as most people believe the southern states to be. After the war, northern factory workers resented the influx of former slaves taking their jobs. Conditions in northern factories were as bad, if not worse, than conditions on a southern plantation. Furthermore, the housing and care of the average northern factory worker was below the conditions and standards of the average slave quarters. Lincoln himself, on numerous occasions, spoke words that would be equated with the absolute worst sort of white supremacist in contemporary times.

13)The result of the War Between the States on the United States Constitution was absolutely disastrous. The sovereign states delegated only a limited amount of their sovereignty to the national state and reserved all other rights and privileges unto itself. The Constitution was a beautifully crafted and brilliantly balanced document that ensured every power had a check, every branch had a check, and the power between state and Federal was checked. The Federal government was seen from the very beginning as an institution crafted by the states in which the states could jointly govern. This is evident when one looks at Congress. The House of Representatives were the directly-elected representatives of the people; Senators represented the interests of the states as whole political entities and were elected by the various state legislatures. Thus, the Congress balanced the interests of the people with the interests of the states. The President was tasked with executing the will of the people and of the states as expressed by the actions of Congress. The War Between the States destroyed this balance by placing the Federal government in a position of supreme centralized power over the states and by the illegal and unconstitutional ratification of the 14th Amendment. It laid the foundation for the increasing and encroaching power of the centralized Federal government for the next 150 years -- a situation we still, to this day, struggle with. It’s a situation that even liberals and progressives should lament. The individual states were intended to be laboratories of social change. Instead, we have an incredibly large and very diverse population governed by a single centralized authority with ‘one size fits all’ law. Our states never relinquished the power over the domestic affairs of its citizenry to the centralized states -- it was taken from them by Lincoln as a result of the War Between the States. Several northern governors recognized this and the potential consequences as early as the first shots.

Okie52, these ARE the Cliff Notes. Read "Battle Cry of Freedom" for a fairly detailed accounting of the pre-war period and the war. Sice'Em will probably say it's biased towards the North. I'm still waiting for his recommendation for the full-length version from the Southron POV.

Sic'Em, I see your point about the events in Charleston Harbor. Yes, stipulating the whole right-to-secede issue, from their POV, the South had the right to take the fort. My point is that it wasn't the right (as in expedient for their cause) thing to do.

What do you think about the last 115+ years on the shore of Guantanamo Bay? President Castro learned something from President Davis' experience, I suspect.

(I absolutely love alternate history, especially where the point of divergence is the war in question. The one I'm still looking for is where Fort Sumter is the point of divergence.)

11) Lincoln didn't call up troops to end slavery, agreed. He did, when elected, have the intent of stopping the westward expansion of slavery, which he thought would, over decades, begin to eliminate slavery. The Deep South knew this, and seceded over it.

12) Perhaps the physical conditions in northern mines and factories were worse than those of the slave plantations. Perhaps, by the same probability, black lung is worse than being whipped. Nevertheless, the slaves lacked the same liberty for which you so eloquently make the case when discussing white Southerners suffering under the King of England or the Northern tyranny. I have to weigh the rank injustice, nay, evil, of slavery against any arguments for the Confederacy. In doing so, I remain grateful that your Cause was, indeed, Lost.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic'Em, I see your point about the events in Charleston Harbor. Yes, stipulating the whole right-to-secede issue, from their POV, the South had the right to take the fort. My point is that it wasn't the right (as in expedient for their cause) thing to do.
Foreign troops in a reinforced garrison on your own soil and territory is a tolerable situation especially given the circumstances of that time? Would a garrisons of British troops on American soil have been acceptable to the new government of the United States? It was an intolerable situation that the south gave the Lincoln administration every opportunity to remedy and avoid a cataclysmic war.


What do you think about the last 115+ years on the shore of Guantanamo Bay? President Castro learned something from President Davis' experience, I suspect

(I absolutely love alternate history, especially where the point of divergence is the war in question. The one I'm still looking for is where Fort Sumter is the point of divergence.)
Guantanamo Bay pre-dates the Castro government, and we legally leased that land (for a pittance, I admit). If the Lincoln Administration had offered to lease Ft. Sumter from South Carolina then perhaps things would have been different. I will admit that it's an interesting "what if" the south had simply left Ft. Sumter and other Federal garrisons alone. My guess is that it wouldn't have mattered -- the Lincoln administration was dead set on pulling those states back into the Union regardless of cost. They would have found an excuse sooner rather than later.


11) Lincoln didn't call up troops to end slavery, agreed. He did, when elected, have the intent of stopping the westward expansion of slavery, which he thought would, over decades, begin to eliminate slavery. The Deep South knew this, and seceded over it.
I used to have these long arugments with Homey back in the day. I always pointed out to him that I never, and have never, maintained that secession at that precise moment was a prudent move -- I've always maintained that it was not. The south should have let things play out with the Lincoln administration a little longer before seceding. The hotheads forced the issue prematurely, imo; however, that absolutely does not negate the fact that secession was legal and justifiable.


12) Perhaps the physical conditions in northern mines and factories were worse than those of the slave plantations. Perhaps, by the same probability, black lung is worse than being whipped. Nevertheless, the slaves lacked the same liberty for which you so eloquently make the case when discussing white Southerners suffering under the King of England or the Northern tyranny. I have to weigh the rank injustice, nay, evil, of slavery against any arguments for the Confederacy. In doing so, I remain grateful that your Cause was, indeed, Lost.
I can't argue with that too much. There's no justification for slavery. My only point is that slave life was not quite the caricature that is represented by mainstream history. Many slaves were given an allowance and many had a decent amount of free movement within the plantation and even into town. That's not a justification of slavery -- it's simply to demonstrate that the popular picture isn't quite true to life.

Slavery would have died out in the south naturally and peacefully one way or the other. It died out everywhere else including Brazil. It may have taken a little longer in the Confederacy, but it still would have died out. People have this false image of southerners as these outrageously racist monsters who hated black people and just wanted to keep them in bondage. As I've said, the Union was equally if not more racist. Most southerners viewed slavery as a distasteful but necessary institution both economically and they believed it was their opportunity to gradually introduce Christianity and civil life to the 'African' race. That's patronizing, of course, but it was mostly a very misguided belief that they were helping the black race one day enter free society. There were several efforts to gradually emancipate slaves in the south that was promoted by a good number of future Confederate generals, officers, and politicians including the Lee family.

What's actually very sad is that sudden and total emancipation was disastrous for the black community -- so much so that they're still playing catchup. These are a people that were suddenly emancipated in a region that was devastated by war, had few jobs available, little opportunity, and a white population that was resentful. How on Earth are a people supposed to flourish in that kind of environment? They started out -50 steps behind the rest of society. A slow gradual and incremental emancipation combined with work and education programs would have been the proper way to emancipate.

[Sooner8th]

pardon me meow saytongue, but I did, and I asked YOU where you think He was born.and, I don't really care if you answer me or not. So, please take your silly sh*t elsewhere.You are a brain damaged, inbred, dumbass, hillbilly, lemming, low iq, lemming piece of ****. It is people like you who are ruining this country. Anybody with any brain function whatsoever knows for a FACT he was born in HONOLULU, HAWAII. Short forms, long forms, newspaper announcements, state dept of health ALL have verified he was born in HONOLULU, HAWAII. If you have any question where he was born..........you are a LEMMING who simply will buy anything stupid, ignorant, brain damaged inbred wingnuts spew. You should not be allowed to vote because your IQ is not high enough to be able to comprehend any information to vote. FVCKING HILLBILLY!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nein. It was written in the immediate post-Civil War period by a Union socialist who created the Pledge for the specific purpose of ensuring people remained loyal, first and foremost, to the Federal state.I wasn't saying you are wrong about that. Just saying the Pledge isn't particularly troubling, since I never have felt it illegal for a state to ignore an unlawful law or order, or secede if necessary.

[soonercoop1]

Great idea....let the liberal states continue with the liberal leftist agenda and let the others follow the constitution with a strong focus on states rights....let liberal states continue to pay the lazy with their money and they can have all the illegals...we know how that will work out for the liberal states...would kill that ideology forever...

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm well aware of the origin and purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm taking it then that some of you were born before or during the Civil War. Jeezuz, I thot I was old.

Me, I stood up every day in school and recited it. It wasn't until 8th grade history that I learned about the real meaning, that it was more than a pledge to a flag.

It was always Lincoln's contention that the USA was indivisible. That's why he pursued the War, to keep it together. The Pledge just reinforces Lincoln's beliefs.

Bunch o' proud Americans, you betcha.


5-0

[FaninAma]

I'm well aware of the origin and purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm taking it then that some of you were born before or during the Civil War. Jeezuz, I thot I was old.

Me, I stood up every day in school and recited it. It wasn't until 8th grade history that I learned about the real meaning, that it was more than a pledge to a flag.

It was always Lincoln's contention that the USA was indivisible. That's why he pursued the War, to keep it together. The Pledge just reinforces Lincoln's beliefs.

Bunch o' proud Americans, you betcha.


5-0
Lincoln was a bought and paid for political idiot who did the bidding of the Northern racists. He used immigrants to fight the Civil War for the Union and he hated Native Americans. But go ahead and swallow the swill and hold him up as the paragon of what this country should stand for. I guess I should be calling you a racist and a bigot if you think he was a hero.

Do yourself a favor and go to West Point and count all of the Irish and Italian names on the Civil War memorials memoralizing those killed at Antietam and Bull Run.. Meanwhile the rich in the North bought their way out of fighting for the equivalent of $5000 dollars today.

[champions77]

I'm afraid that well before this country is ripe for succession that it will destroy itself from debt. That the dependence culture we now have will expect more and more. Austerity will not be tolerated, after all they are "entitled" to it all. Every time a responsible politician tries to reform welfare or social security, the left comes back with "you are starving little children and throwing granny over the cliff" and the reformer backs down. The main stream media always plays a big role in this, reinforcing the leftist goofs that object to it.


Everyone should think back at the attitudes of the folks in Ferguson. How easy and natural it was for them to break in and loot those businesses, then set fire to them. Absolutely no respect for anyone's property or possessions. Now if this Country does crater, which I believe is inevitable, then think what will ensue when those government checks stop? What then, are they going out and find some work, maybe plant a garden, go fishing for dinner, go hunting for game? No they coming to your house and my house, and the will break in and take from you what they deem valuable. Whether or not you are killed or injured if you decide to make a stand to protect your property, will be a choice that you have to make. With firearm ownership the way it is, you can expect a lot of bloodshed, a lot.
This is when a revolution will occur. The country will be it's most vulnerable, chaos will be everywhere. The majority of Americans are too comfortable with the way things are today. It will take a collapse of some degree to bring on a revolt. Where Radical Islam fits into all of this is unknown, but they will probably be a big player in all of this.
Keep your powder dry.

[Sooner8th]

I wasn't saying you are wrong about that. Just saying the Pledge isn't particularly troubling, since I never have felt it illegal for a state to ignore an unlawful law or order, or secede if necessary.Where do you get this garbage at? Read the CONSTITUTION! Those "rights" simply do not exist. You keep talking about them even though it have been rejected by the Supreme Court. "The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause