Posted on 10/17/2013 8:45:51 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Governor Rick Perry was once alleged to have stated that Texas could secede in the future. But he now states he opposes succession:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/11/13/rick-perry-texas-secession-petition/1702359/
If the different states were to become different nations, the federal government would cease to exist. That means that the federal debt would be reduced to Zero. But the price that Americans would pay, would be the loss of super power status. Would Americans be better off or worse off, if the states were to become different countries?
Why? The US War for Independence did not include mass murder nor did the revolt that toppled the USSR. So why the ahistorical insistence that such revolts must end in mass murder?
Keep in mind that oppressive taxation is less evil than mass murder.
Gang rape is less evil than mass murder.
Murder is less evil than mass murder.
Torture is less evil than mass murder.
et al
So you're willing to submit to a totalitarian state that rapes, murders, and tortures so long as it doesn't commit mass murder because you'll bear any injustice to avoid your hypothetical strawman of 'mass murder'?
Here are some words from a violent rebel for you:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
I would like to see a future where states with the same ideals are continguous, like Texas and Oklahoma. Then the legislators, conservative of course, say, “This is who we are, this is who you have to be to live here, all others must leave.”
Liberal states could do the same. Every divorce is not a domestic violence drama, they can be amicable and done respectfully.
Untrue. In 1775 the Crown sought to put down an illegal and violent insurrection on the part of their own subjects and it seems to me you'd have supported them as a Loyalist had you been around back then.
What we call our 'Revolution' most British historians properly consider a civil war, or a violent insurrection. It was totally illegal under British law yet it happened anyway.
You sir, are on the wrong side of this argument and on the wrong side of history.
Peaceful displacement to those that don’t hold to the ideals of Texas, arrest if they don’t. But they can’t stay. Only those who are productive, law-abiding conservative citizens may stay.
(I don’t want to talk out of turn for Texas, I am assuming they are one the last large bastions of conservatism)
If New York became it’s own country we would be something like Bangladesh.
I’d hardly call a fracturing of the nation a temper tantrum. There’s a point where the red states won’t take it anymore, and even if the result isn’t good doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Mass murder was harder in 1775. The Iroquois raids in Cherry Vally were very cruel, and General Sullivan responded, and took a stab at mass murder of the Indians. Banastre Tarleton was pretty famous for his cruelty in the South. In response to that, many southern patriots became more cruel.
I still read comments from southern partisans who complain about what Sherman did in Georgia, though much of the damage was done by the southern army or southern deserters.
Soviet Union was all about mass murder state from day 1. Ending it was a good thing, as most people recognized at the time. I think their butcher bill was in excess of 50 million lives. That kind of thing squanders ones moral force for honest people.
I think the 1860 attempt was a temper tantrum. They had not been harmed, and still the slave power started the war, to their everlasting shame.
No. The response to the Tea Party should have been legal action. Rather than that, the English government occupied Boston and closed the harbor, denying due process to its people. The various colonies responded to that peacefully: providing food and goods to Boston over land.
In response to the failure to have the damages to tea repaid, Gage, the military governor, sent out armed soldiers to imprison colonial leaders and steal colonial property. That is when the fighting started.
The next civil war won’t be a battle between states, it will be battles between Urban and Rural areas all over the country.
So how many of your neighbors are you prepared to shoot for not holding the ideals of Texas?
I bet you have your eye on a nice house that you could take over if you only could arrest them and force them out.
Perhaps you don’t. Perhaps someone likes your house though. Once you start that stuff, it doesn’t stop when you want it to.
So you oppose illegal violent insurrections except when you don’t.
So noted.
I oppose starting illegal violent insurrections.
BOSTON - April 20
National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, had links to a radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against local tax collection offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed weapons. Governor Gage had issued a ban on private ownership of weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting earlier this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists simply obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths.
Before order could be restored, armed citizens from the surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
First reported on April 20, 1775
Update:
Be on the lookout for Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, and remain at large.
Now that you mention it, probably not, because much of what's left would be liberal whacko-ville Code Pink types that can't "stomach" the thought of war.
That’s an excellent way of illustrating the problem.
see
by Matt Bracken http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3078054/posts
A peaceful breakup ala the SU would be nice, but is unlikely.
There's the difference between you and I. You oppose the insurrection and I oppose the kind of government that would provoke one and make it necessary.
While a violent insurrection is an absolute action of last resort to me (as it should be for everyone) I find it far more dangerous to rule it out lest in doing so we convince potential tyrants that they can go about their tyranny unopposed.
I personally like the idea that people in government should get nervous when they start doing things they ought not do. If things get to where they have no fear of being held to account by oversight or the courts then they most certainly should fear being held to account by the citizenry. They should fear the smell of hot tar and they should fear the sight of every lamp post they pass by.
The day those people hold no fear of the rest of us is the day that violent insurrection will no longer be a matter of choice but one of survival.
That was disturbingly accurate and funny.
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.