Posted on 03/31/2010 6:36:03 AM PDT by kingattax
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
It will be us who will be charging them the tolls to go between Seattle and San Fran
I’m also sure Eastern Oregon & Washington will go with those in the free states
A federal gov’t that ONLY deals with affairs with external entities or with commerce DISPUTES between states.
Spot on!
Truer words never spoken. Our ancestors knew this too. Revolutionary movements based on freedom and Christian beliefs have been fought many times in the past. Many of them made it here and find themselves having to resist again.
Norway seceded peacefully from Sweden. However, that is not likely in our case.
The foundation is still the Constitution. Do you support adherence thereto or not?
The new United States would need to figure out how to keep at least half the military hardware - or more, since conservatives tend to be the people who actually know how to use it.
Yes it was. Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869) Link
____________________________________________________________
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480723/posts
Please see the link for a previous discussion of this issue.
Yes, secession was litigated in Texas v White, BUT NOT UNTIL 3 YEARS AFTER THE WAR.
What was the main problem with the North?
____________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
Nullification came prior to the issue of slavery. Link provided.
The history of nullification will perhaps answer your question.
We could just buy it within 5 years,
because the USSA would be absolutely broke by then.
Slavery was legal and practiced in the northern states after the end of the civil war.
Further, the emancipation proclamation freed slaves in most of the south, but not all of it.
If the war was only about slavery, and so clear cut - wouldn’t slavery have been illegal in all of the northern states?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480723/posts
The link is to a previous discussion on this topic.
It’s good to see there are others (such as yourself) who have actually studied our history instead of sole reliance on “what we were taught in school.”
Real property ownership would be a good indication of “investment” in the system.
It also used to be that women didn’t vote because it was the man’s duty to represent the family beyond the realm of his household.
Yes it was. Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
____________________________________________________________
The problem with Non Sequitor’s response above is that it wasn’t litigated until 3 years AFTER the Civil War.
“Natural rights become the basis for law.”
“So the government has no right to put down any rebellion or insurrection, since all the rebels have to do is announce ‘we’re exerting our natural rights.’”
Any government worth its salt would try to put a rebellion down; however, it must be able to rationalize/justify the costs. The loss of 600,000 men, the flower of our youth, is arguably too high a cost.
Nevertheless, the Constitution was clearly a voluntary association—the new country was not formally called “America” but “The UNITED STATES of America”; there was no clause which stated that a state could not withdraw. The reason was that the architects of the Constitution believed in natural rights.
Today, a secession would not be violently responded to by the Federal Government, because armed action against Secessionist state government would be the ultimate in anathema. The only thing that might dissuade a successful Secession in these modern times would be the National Guard—not their federalization, but their professionalism in supporting any Commander in Chief’s orders.
“Real property ownership would be a good indication of “investment” in the system.”
A very valid thought. But you still need to weed out the public sector workers who loot the system and the property ownership test doesn’t adequately do that.
Texas was not readmitted to the Union until 1870, so the SCOTUS decision was tantamount to telling a rebellious child what his punishment is; i.e., he has no rights.
Exactly. There are plenty of reasons why liberals should not hate secession. The remaining votes in Washington would be far more leftist, there would be no more Bushes in the White House, they divest themselves of some troubled areas of the country, millions off the welfare rolls, etc.
AND, if done peacefully, the seceding nation would likely have to pay Washington for the military bases, federal park land, etc. they would be taking over - thus helping Washington pay down their debt. Viewed properly, it's a win-win other than for tyrants whose only interest is in enslaving the most number of people.
But I strongly believe that the country which practices free market policies will eventually triumph and my fear is that if the U.S. turns into a socialist state, there will be no "free" nation left once America capitulates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.