Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
What is the root of the secessionist movement? The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government. The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.
In years past politicians from both parties have used the guilt factor to increase spending for the "needy". This tempers the backlash from the populace as they realize they are to sacrifice a new boat, or nicer home, for the greater good of society. Today, citizens are being asked to sacrifice their children's education, vacations, and even the home they are in, so that money can be transferred from their wallets to multi-billion dollar corporations.
When we add more government controls and regulations on everything from cigarettes, to fast food and guns, we begin to see the problem. Government is now coming at everyone at some level, over some issue. This piling on is causing those fringe secessionist movements to became mainstream very quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...
You can secede for any reason you want, or for no reason at all if that's your choice. The why is unimportant to me and is only of concern to those wanting to leave. My position is and always has been that if it is clear that the majority of the people of a state or states wishes to leave the Union and makes this desire clear to Congress, then it is Congress' duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all potential issues of disagreement and then vote to allow them to leave. If the state chooses armed conflict instead of negotiated and peaceful separation then all bets are off. They fight and win or they fight and lose, the ultimate outcome is in their hands. But in the end there is one, and only one peaceful way to separate and that through negotiation and agreement on both sides of the issue.
Here's a follow-up. In the scenario I described, which I think is very likely to be the situation we eventually face, Congress refuses to allow the conservative states to depart. This is a Congress that has long since broken free from the moorings of the Constitution and is maintained in power by voters it imported for the very purpose of undermining the electoral clout of American citizens. Would the states be justified in going their own way without authorization at that point?
I don't believe you believe that. Why? because your Constitutional God, the Illinois Butcher(TM), would have laughed at your above stated position in April 1861. He turned away southern peace delegations and you know it. Unless you state that Lincoln was wrong, the Civil War unjust on the part of the Northern Aggression, then I am convinced you are a two face liar, i.e. a Yankee for short.
Why do you think it's the likely scenario? If it is clearly evident through any polling method you care to name that the clear majority of the people want to leave then what is the incentive for the Congress to refuse to negotiate a separation and allow them to leave? Especially when the alternative could be, would be, violence and civil strife? What is the motivation for that?
And as I've said on prior occasions, I don't care what you believe.
He turned away southern peace delegations and you know it.
We're talking about negotiating a settlement before leaving, something the South wasn't interested in because it would have led to a peaceful separation. Lincoln refused to meet with a group that had already walked out, taken every bit of federal property they could get their hands on, and were there demanding even more. Who in their right mind would agree to that?
Unless you state that Lincoln was wrong, the Civil War unjust on the part of the Northern Aggression, then I am convinced you are a two face liar, i.e. a Yankee for short.
I thought you'd been convinced of that for a while? Back on the Confederate holiday sharing thread? But as I said then, and as I'll repeat now, I could not care less what you think. But let me state for the record that if I said I believed Lincoln was wrong and that the Civil War was due to Northern aggression then I would by lying.
But to answer your question, the motivation for the left to retain the conservative states would be control. Leftists do not believe that anything should be outside the scope of their control. That's why they constantly ratchet up the size of government. They ultimately seek a world government from which no one could escape.
You've no doubt heard the old joke about the New York Times headline if the world was about to end: “WORLD TO END TOMORROW. WOMEN, MINORITIES TO SUFFER MOST”.
Well, if intelligent life were discovered in another galaxy, the Times headline would read: “INTELLIGENT LIFE DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER GALAXY. INTERGALACTIC GOVERNMENT SEEN AS NEEDED.”
The goal of the left in America isn't to live and let live. It's to steamroll over anyone who gets in their way. Take any issue and you can see the truth in this. Are they going to be satisfied with same-sex “marriage” in liberal cesspools like Vermont and Massachusetts? Of course not. They'll keep using the courts and using viral tactics (relocating same-sex couples to places like Alabama) until a fiat eventually forces all fifty states to comply. Once the states have complied, they can never let them go. They simply can't tolerate it.
This is an inherent part of modern liberalism. It is a universalist ideology which doesn't believe anyone should ever be outside of its control. Add in that the departing conservative states would likely be a source of tax revenue to keep places like California and New York afloat, and you can see why they wouldn't allow the departure.
Because I don't think it's a likely scenario. What you want is for me to agree that there are times when the Constitution allows a state to leave unilaterally. I don't agree with that so you're never going to get the answer you're looking for.
How do you do that?
South: I want to leave, you want to talk about it please?
North: You can't leave, shut up with the "crazy" talk.
South: I am drafting secession articles, OK?
North: Go ahead, make my day.
South: Here is my Secession decree. Want to talk peace.
North: You are rebels, nothing more.
South: Get off of our land we are sovereign.
North: We will invade.
South: We figured as much.
as Professor T Harry Williams , of LSU,used to say:
The unionists stoutly proclaimed that the states "in rebellion" were NEVER OUT of the union as long as there WAS a war, BUT once the war was over they treated the former CSA states as CONQUERED foreign territory.
DAMNyankees have FOREVER been HYPOCRITES & LIARS.
free dixie,sw
Talking to yourself, while not surprising, isn’t making your case.
don't you get tired of being their "dear leader"??? it must be tiring leading a bunch of NITWITS, BIGOTS & FOOLS like the DAMNyankees you have as acolytes.
free dixie,sw
“But can you tell us if you’d approve of secession if a group of states (perhaps right in your very territory) finds that the other, more populous states are making it impossible for them function as the majority of their citizens desire.”
“You can secede for any reason you want, or for no reason at all if that’s your choice. The why is unimportant to me and is only of concern to those wanting to leave. My position is and always has been that if it is clear that the majority of the people of a state or states wishes to leave the Union and makes this desire clear to Congress, then it is Congress’ duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all potential issues of disagreement and then vote to allow them to leave. If the state chooses armed conflict instead of negotiated and peaceful separation then all bets are off. They fight and win or they fight and lose, the ultimate outcome is in their hands. But in the end there is one, and only one peaceful way to separate and that through negotiation and agreement on both sides of the issue.”
Herein lies the rub. “..it is the Congress’ duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement....and then vote to allow them to leave.”
Do you seriously believe that this Congress would allow Texas or any other state to peaceably leave? No, they are too much into control and power. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution, States Rights or anything else that might interfere with their power and control.
What option then would the seceding state or states have left other than unilateral secession?
Maybe, but we figure things like that out in reference to concrete situations. Occupied Europe in the 1940s didn't have voting or representation, so they'd have been right to rebel, though given the resources Germany had to crush uprisings, they had to be contented with smaller kinds of resistance.
The colonists in the 1770s weren't represented in Parliament. They had the right to petition Parliament and the King. They used it and it didn't do any good. They were justified in defending themselves, and when the British attacked, war, and a justifiable rebellion was the result.
In the 1860s, the Southern states were represented in Congress. Southern White men had the vote and had used it to get themselves real power in the government. So I'd say that they couldn't claim the right to rebellion against tyranny, but should have worked within the system. If they couldn't get what they wanted in Congress or from the President, they could have worked at the national level to dissolve their union with the rest of the country.
And if the federal government didn't want to let the slave states go? Well, when the Martin Luther King holiday was proposed, I thought it was a bad idea. But now I'd have to admit that King went about things the right way -- through protest and nonviolent civil disobedience. That was better than what Davis and the secessionists did.
Of course protest marches wouldn't have worked against a real tyranny, but neither King nor Davis was up against a tyranny. And of course the problem with peaceful protest is that it works with "simple" questions, like basic freedom. If you want fundamental rights or freedom from a larger polity, it may work (in a constitutional and democratic country). It's harder to use it to determine what specific policies should be.
Nonviolent protest wasn't a common idea a century and a half ago. Americans were in love with the idea of force, so it came to secession and war. But looking back, it looks as though King's way (whatever you think of other aspects of his life) was superior to Davis's.
I'm not saying anything about how things are now, and I don't know what the future holds, so I can't give advice on what to do now. But there are tides and cycles in these things. Look at how things were a few years ago, compared to how they are now. You might see a continuing, unstoppable decline. But the other possibility is that what's going on now will pass as other periods have passed.
I doubt you're going to see reparations to women (How would that work? Would everyone whose ancestry was at least half female be getting a check?). Movements benefit from energy and support (or at least public indifference about their goals) for I time and then they exhaust themselves or at least, they go into hibernation. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about these things, but I suspect that at some point this gay wave is going to subside. Maybe about the time big gay newspapers start to go bottom up.
I remember being very p*ss*d off at Clinton's election, but the country survived. I had a friend from Latin America who told me, "Well, it's not so bad to let the other guys run things once in twenty years or so." Maybe things are different now and we're really headed for hell (and it's only been 8 years since the last Democratic President, not 20), but what's important is what he wasn't saying.
My friend came from one of those countries that had been derailed by a military coup. It took decades to get representative government back. Maybe that coup was unavoidable to prevent a left-wing tyranny, but what I got from his comment was that if we can possibly get through four years with our institutions intact, maybe we'd better not be rash about our decisions now.
thus, i would, if i were you (that thought makes me SHUDDER), keep my mouth SHUT about anyone else's education. (fwiw, you write like a "not too bright" 10th grade dropout.)
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
thus, i would, if i were you (that thought makes me SHUDDER), keep my mouth SHUT about anyone else's education. (fwiw, you write like a "not too bright" 10th grade dropout.)
Shazam, swattie! Still going on about that? What crawled up into your head and died?
If I remember, you started it with the whole edjumakashun thing.
I was just saying, if you want to put people down for that, it helps if your own typing doesn't look illiterate.
Otherwise people will just look at you funny and ignore you (maybe not a bad idea) ...
And you’re again caught between Scylla and Charibdes.
Well, I gotta give Rick Perry credit. He’s hacked me off multiple times, but he was the first big named pol that uttered the “S” word, and him saying it is what’s made people realize this is more than just a few disgruntled people. Getting 750,000 to show up at the tea parties also got their attention.
Why not if the alternative is a state where the overwhelming majority of the people don't want to be there and the likelyhood of violence? If 75% of Texas said that they wanted to leave then I'd be the first one in Congress to offer to chair the negotiating committee. Keeping Texas, or anyone else, under those kinds of circumstances makes no sense at all.
While the media will say they Texas does not have the right to do this outright (there are some court cases which agree, there are certain paths they can take to get this goal).
While they do not have the right to do this outright, there are certain paths they can take to get this goal. Come on, you know this is possible because this is the same country which gives exceptions to tax cheats through cleaver legal
maneuvers.
Really it is just using the legal system creatively.
Texas probably has the best chance at success. Here is just one way how it can work. The annexation agreement made when Texas joined the union provided that Texas would be able to divide into 5 states. This would create 8 more conservative Senators.
If Texas were to try to divide and be rebuffed, the US would be in violation of the agreement and Texas should be able to go free.
It is not all that far fetched.
Regardless of the TX situation, the movement was larger than expected. And it is just a start because the thing about grass roots is that it will only take hold, grow and spread.
Some pics here:
http://tinyurl.com/texasmayleave
And of all the people on this forum who is better qualified to judge whether or not someone is making sense or not than you? </sarcasm>
That book arrive yet?
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.