Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ominous ‘S-Word’ – Secession
Big Government ^ | 3-31-10 | Timothy H. Lee

Posted on 03/31/2010 6:36:03 AM PDT by kingattax

After 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?

Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways.

Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?

Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah.

We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cwii; cwiiping; donttreadonme; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-266 next last
To: GonzoGOP; DuncanWaring

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


141 posted on 03/31/2010 10:53:40 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

A federal gov’t that ONLY deals with affairs with external entities or with commerce DISPUTES between states.


142 posted on 03/31/2010 10:55:46 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Spot on!


143 posted on 03/31/2010 10:57:00 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (I do not want the Union to be maintained. I want the US to break up. I support secession.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
A secession would not be polite and non-violent. Tyrants and Marxists aren’t stupid. They know very well that their lifestyle depends on our labor.


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.

144 posted on 03/31/2010 11:01:16 AM PDT by eleni121 (For Jesus did not give us a timid spirit , but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Norway seceded peacefully from Sweden. However, that is not likely in our case.


145 posted on 03/31/2010 11:03:10 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

The foundation is still the Constitution. Do you support adherence thereto or not?


146 posted on 03/31/2010 11:15:59 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

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.


147 posted on 03/31/2010 11:39:45 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


148 posted on 03/31/2010 11:44:34 AM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

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.


149 posted on 03/31/2010 11:55:56 AM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

We could just buy it within 5 years,
because the USSA would be absolutely broke by then.


150 posted on 03/31/2010 11:57:17 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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?


151 posted on 03/31/2010 11:57:31 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
I would prefer amending the constitution. Limit voting rights strictly to persons who are net payers into the system. This would preclude persons who receive more in government supplied benefits than they pay in taxes from continually voting themselves goodies (like welfare recipients and public sector workers). It would bring accountability and common sense back into the political realm.
152 posted on 03/31/2010 12:03:14 PM PDT by rockthecasbah (He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
I would prefer amending the constitution. Limit voting rights strictly to persons who are net payers into the system. This would preclude persons who receive more in government supplied benefits than they pay in taxes from continually voting themselves goodies (like welfare recipients and public sector workers). It would bring accountability and common sense back into the political realm.
153 posted on 03/31/2010 12:03:49 PM PDT by rockthecasbah (He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691

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.”


154 posted on 03/31/2010 12:03:59 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rockthecasbah

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.


155 posted on 03/31/2010 12:05:35 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

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.


156 posted on 03/31/2010 12:05:45 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

“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.


157 posted on 03/31/2010 12:13:20 PM PDT by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“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.


158 posted on 03/31/2010 12:16:04 PM PDT by rockthecasbah (He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

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.


159 posted on 03/31/2010 12:17:02 PM PDT by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And what is the one common feature in all those incidents? The partition was done with the agreement of both sides of the issue and after negotiations which settled all possible areas of disagreement before the separation. There is no reason why secession, should it come to the U.S., shouldn't be accomplished in the same peaceful manner so long as it is done with agreement of both sides, those leaving and those staying.

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.

160 posted on 03/31/2010 12:18:34 PM PDT by OrangeHoof ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Bend over suckahs".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-266 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson