Secession Is A Radical Solution That Sadly Doesn’t Seem So Radical Any More

[roamer_1]

I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is  citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States.  Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have  the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail,  and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that  preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.

SURE. Take up WY... And don't suppose her sisters won't go with her... That'd be ID, MT, likely NoDak, probably SoDak, and likely UT and eastern WA and OR...

[Sled Dog]

There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.

When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.

Nice argument.

Where in the Constitution is this "test for stupidity" you mention?

Where in the Constitution is the state allowed to remove the Constitution from the lives of the state's residents?

The Constitution grants several means for the people to resolve the Stupidity Issue.   This includes elections, amending the Constitution either by Congressional Action or by an Article V Convention of States, and, finally, the Second Amendment comes into play.   But if the final card is played, the Constitutional prohibition against rebellion is called and then things get really ugly, really fast.

And, besides, as I keep pointing out, secession WILL NOT WORK.

[Sled Dog]

SURE. Take up WY... And don't suppose her sisters won't go with her... That'd be ID, MT, likely NoDak, probably SoDak, and likely UT and eastern WA and OR...

Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?

Hands?

No?

Anyone know why the Southern Rebels failed in the Civil War?

Because...
...they had a smaller population,
...they had a limited industrial base,
...they have a mono-crop agrarian economy
...they had no navy.
...they failed to secure foreign recognition, even by those nations suffering the US embargo of the South's cotton.   

What would happen when the states most idiotically vocal about secession actually tried to secede?

Outside of Texas, those states are...agrarian, thinly populated, land-locked, and won't secure foreign recognition for their independence bid.  Canada is Woke Curling Paradise and won't support any rump nation attempting to form as an escape from Obama's Marxist Paradise.   And Texas wouldn't stand long, either.   Pretend-macho nonsense aside, the urban centers of Texas would burn to the ground if the state attempted to sever ties to Washington's welfare tribute.

And that's the one thing the Southern Confederacy didn't really suffer from.  Today's secesh states all have urban centers heavily infested with Rodents addicted to welfare money and white-guilt.

They'll secede and carry the cancer with them.

[roamer_1]

Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?

Hands?

No?

Comes a time to draw a hard line. And that time is coming on. If it is a matter of fighting for liberty or having it taken, the Rockies will not bow. And you sure as hell won't dig us out.

And the Confederacy this time around, if it must go that far, will be more than the South, I guarantee.

[Sled Dog]

Comes a time to draw a hard line. And that time is coming on. If it is a matter of fighting for liberty or having it taken, the Rockies will not bow. And you sure as hell won't dig us out.

And the Confederacy this time around, if it must go that far, will be more than the South, I guarantee.

But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional.   Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?

And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming.   I hope she does.  That's far far away from where I'm going to be.   And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...

[Smokin Joe]

But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional.   Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?

And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming.   I hope she does.  That's far far away from where I'm going to be.   And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...

You are all hung up on Constitutional, yet the very government you seem to defend has routinely violated that compact for decades. If the Federal Government will not abide by that compact, then for all purposes they have abdicated any Right to gripe about nullification of their unconstitutional acts and even secession.

There is no way that those sovereign and Several States would have agreed to any compact that was an inextricable quagmire.

[roamer_1]

But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional.   Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?

I said no such thing. I said the liberty ordained and established in the Declaration of Independence supersedes the Constitution in authority - And that the Constitution, as a contract, is null and void if not performed, just like ANY contract.

And not that I really give a sh*t. When it comes to bowing to tyrants, I need no other reason than the bare fact I will not bow. And neither will my brethren. So come and take it.

And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming.   I hope she does.  That's far far away from where I'm going to be.   And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...

Just as well... Doesn't sound like you'd be welcome.   

[Bigun]

Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?

Hands?

No?

Anyone know why the Southern Rebels failed in the Civil War?

Because...
...they had a smaller population,
...they had a limited industrial base,
...they have a mono-crop agrarian economy
...they had no navy.
...they failed to secure foreign recognition, even by those nations suffering the US embargo of the South's cotton.   

What would happen when the states most idiotically vocal about secession actually tried to secede?

Outside of Texas, those states are...agrarian, thinly populated, land-locked, and won't secure foreign recognition for their independence bid.  Canada is Woke Curling Paradise and won't support any rump nation attempting to form as an escape from Obama's Marxist Paradise.   And Texas wouldn't stand long, either.   Pretend-macho nonsense aside, the urban centers of Texas would burn to the ground if the state attempted to sever ties to Washington's welfare tribute.

And that's the one thing the Southern Confederacy didn't really suffer from.  Today's secesh states all have urban centers heavily infested with Rodents addicted to welfare money and white-guilt.

They'll secede and carry the cancer with them.

Apparently, you have never taken a look at any of those county by county election maps that have been coming out for the last several years. @Sled Dog

Study this for a while and think about what you see.

[sneakypete]

But the Southerners

who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery....

@goatprairie
.
I get so tired of hearing that "to preserve slavery" crap I could puke on your head for bringing it up again.

That was the EXCUSE the Yankees used  to give cover to "grand theft,state". After the war ended the carpetbaggers came in,and with their buddies from the north that were appointed to jobs like sheriff,judge,chief justice,county manager,state senator,etc,etc,etc,robbed the south  blind. They had cute little tricks like the sheriff declaring a far up for sale due to delinquent taxes on the very morning of the sale,and would tack up the notice as his pals,the only bidders there,watched.

Keep in mind the taxes were delinquent because the farm owners had been away fighting the war,and most hadn't even gotten back home yet.

Mr Lincoln and accomplices may have talked a humanitarian goal,but it was all about control and profit by legalized theft.

The very island I live on now is one example. Several hundred acres,and MAYBE 10-15 families living here when the war started. None of those families were living here after the war because the sheriff put it up for sale at a tax auction,and it sold to Yankee industrialists who wanted a hunting club. The men came back from the war to discover they no longer had homes,and their families were living with relatives. Those same industralists and their offsprung retained owership of the island until the 60's or 70's,when duck hunting became uncouth and unfashionable amongst the Wall Street set,and it was sold off again.
 
Ironically enough,there is once again a hunting club here for rich southeasters.  And me. My house is the only house here,and I am living on the same lot my mother and her sister lived on after the flu of 1918 and they were sent to live with a crippled up Civil War vet because he needed somebody to cook and take care of him,and they needed somewhere to live. The original house was still standing when I bought the land,but it was rotten to the core. It was so old it was built back when the kitchen was a separate building with a walkway between it and the house.  I could grab a door jamb inside the house in my hand and crumble it.

These insider trading land deals were why so many Confederate soldiers left the south and moved west to start over. There was nothing here for most of them,and the courts were only concerned with keeping them poor and helpless.

And let's not even get into how in many places a former slave could murder his former owner or their family,and just be told to move away avoid revenge.

Want to know why the KKK gained so much power and turned racist? Now you know. The law only applied TO the southerners,and never FOR them. There were cases of blacks raping and murdering white women and the courts refusing to have them arrested or put on trial. Granted,it didn't happen often,but it DID happen.

Hell,it's still happening today,but these days it's happening more in Mn,LA, and Portland than the south.

[Sled Dog]

Apparently, you have never taken a look at any of those county by county election maps that have been coming out for the last several years. @Sled Dog

Study this for a while and think about what you see.

Sure I have.

Now, because you people have lost the state secession argument, some are willing to bring up secession-by-county.

That's nice.

It's still the urban areas where the industries are.

It's still the urban areas where the cannon-fodder troops are.

It's still the urban areas where the money is.

It's still the urban areas which will garner the support of the international community, thereby deny said support to the "counties".

Secession is still a losing argument, and those advocating that silliness still need to grow up and find a better argument.

[Sled Dog]

@goatprairie
.
I get so tired of hearing that "to preserve slavery" crap I could puke on your head for bringing it up again.

Yeah, because the goal of the Southern Democrats who pushed the secession gambit ...were in fact doing so solely to preserve their slavery culture.

You may be sick of it, but your vomit won't change historical reality.

The southern leaders pushed the nation into civil war to keep their property.  And the property they were fighting to keep had arms and legs and children.

The troops bought the farce that it was about "states' rights", but the "right" in contention was the right of the southern gentry to own and sell people.

That was the EXCUSE the Yankees used  to give cover to "grand theft,state". After the war ended the carpetbaggers...

Had nothing to do with the causes of the wars and the real reasons the Rodents of the time pushed for secession was to not only keep their slaves but to expand the Peculiar Institution into the western territories of the United States.

The Rodents brokered their own national convention because a "moderate" was going to be nominated if the southern hotheads let the show continue.   

Since they started the Civil War, it's just a crying shame that they murdered the only person in Washington that would have been sympathetic to their plight, after.   The murder of Lincoln by a Southern coward inflamed the North, fueled demands for retribution and silenced any voices for restraint that were left.

It may have been a wee bit harsh on the millions of people in the South that didn't pull the trigger, but life can be unfair, ya dig?

Then the South immediately started disenfranchising the new black voters and attempted to put them back on the plantations as indentured servants again.  Screw the southerners and the damage they caused for centuries.

Keep in mind the taxes were delinquent because the farm owners had been away fighting the war,and most hadn't even gotten back home yet.

This still lacks relevancy to the lies the Rodents pushed about the war both before and after.

Want to know why the KKK gained so much power and turned racist? Now you know. The law only applied TO the southerners,and never FOR them. There were cases of blacks raping and murdering white women and the courts refusing to have them arrested or put on trial. Granted,it didn't happen often,but it DID happen.

"Turned" racist?

That's interesting.  How many blacks were founding fathers of the Ku Klux Klan, I wonder?

[sneakypete]

"Turned" racist?

That's interesting.  How many blacks were founding fathers of the Ku Klux Klan, I wonder?

@Sled Dog

I didn't overlook your narrowing the field to "Founding fathers of the KKK".

There were black KKK members in the early days,just like there were black Confederate soldiers. As well as black slave owners. Did you know that the VERY first slave owner in the English-Speaking New World was a black man who came to America as an indentured servant?

BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.

And that whites held whites as slaves,just like everybody else held some of their own people as slaves.

[Sled Dog]

Just as well... Doesn't sound like you'd be welcome.   

Sure I would be.

I'm a real American.   Conservative, Navy veteran, never been on welfare, never voted Rodent, don't support idiots or their ideas.

And no matter where I go, I am not weak enough to worry if people like me or not.   That's something they have to worry about, really.

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

I didn't overlook your narrowing the field to "Founding fathers of the KKK".

Then don't.

The KKK was established to disenfranchise blacks and undermine the United States.

Why else do you think it's a Democrat stronghold?

BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.

Oh, gee.  We're all going to get the routine lecture about how slavery is the human condition again to justify the facts of slavery by the Democrats then and now.

Wonderful.

And this guy is telling it to a descendant of Irish kings.

ALL Irishmen are descended from Irish kings.  It was a very small island, after all.

Back to American History:  The Democrats started the Civil War to defend their ownership of slaves.   End of class, no discussion needed.  Students who claim otherwise on the final exam will receive an F.   This is as central to the understanding the US Civil War as the facts of evolution by natural selection is to the study of medicine and biology.

[Elderberry]

@Sled Dog

BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.

You are sure good at throwing crap around, even if it's Satire.

Just part of my "Hispanic" Wife's DNA Analysis:   

Americas 64%

Amerindian – Central & South Mexico 56%
Amerindian – Andes & Caribbean 3%
Amerindian – North America 3%
Amerindian – North Mexico 1%

[Elderberry]

Sure I would be.

I'm a real American.   Conservative, Navy veteran, never been on welfare, never voted Rodent, don't support idiots or their ideas.

And no matter where I go, I am not weak enough to worry if people like me or not.   That's something they have to worry about, really.

Were you a Bubblehead? My son was. A F'n Nuke(MMN).

I was a Carrier Twidgit(ETR) in my day.

[bigheadfred]

[Outro]
I am prepared now, seems everything's gonna be fine
For me, for me, for myself
For me, for me, for myself
For me, for me, for myself
I am prepared now, for myself
I am prepared now
And I am fine again[/b
Seether

[Sled Dog]

You are sure good at throwing crap around, even if it's Satire.

Just part of my "Hispanic" Wife's DNA Analysis:   

Americas 64%

Amerindian – Central & South Mexico 56%
Amerindian – Andes & Caribbean 3%
Amerindian – North America 3%
Amerindian – North Mexico 1%

Umm....just to set the record straight, the quote you are attributing to me was in fact posted by @sneakypete and I was merely responding to it. ( ah...I see it was nested in...gotta love software, don't we?)

I personally don't care what someone's genetic heritage is.  Baldness runs in families, after all.

You have 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs.  You cannot have a 1% heritage of anything, the minimum is 1/46 = 2.17%.

Unless you're descended from Pocahontas, of course.   

For the purposes of discussion, I married a wasian from Paris.  I don't know what that makes my kids...tricontinental?

[Sled Dog]

Were you a Bubblehead? My son was. A F'n Nuke(MMN).

I was a Carrier Twidgit(ETR) in my day.

We never used that term.  That was something only skimmers would use.  I was an MM(SS).  They didn't have MMN's in the day.

[sneakypete]

Then don't.

The KKK was established to disenfranchise blacks and undermine the United States.

Why else do you think it's a Democrat stronghold?

I just don't have the patience to educate the clueless anymore. You still believe the crap you were taught in goobermint schools. Learn a little actual history,and then get back with me.

 Until then,ESAD.

[Sled Dog]

I just don't have the patience to educate the clueless anymore. You still believe the crap you were taught in goobermint schools. Learn a little actual history,and then get back with me.

 Until then,ESAD.

Actually, my formal education spent less than two weeks on the Civil War, but I've spent years reading histories on the event and studying it on my own.

I also taught myself calculus and can tie my own shoes, too.

Oh, and I'm not Clueless.   My daughter has the game on her closet shelf.

[Victoria33]

@Fishrrman  We will know in 2024 if the current Republic is worth saving,or if we have to cut loose the dead weight.

@sneakypete

sneaky, my friend, I was born and grew to adulthood in Texas.  Back in my day, every student in a Texas school, was taught this - Before Texas agreed to join the union, they insisted on the right to leave the union, and that was included in the documents.  It was/is the only state to have that protection to leave if they want.  They will not leave.

[Elderberry]

Umm....just to set the record straight, the quote you are attributing to me was in fact posted by @sneakypete and I was merely responding to it. ( ah...I see it was nested in...gotta love software, don't we?)

I personally don't care what someone's genetic heritage is.  Baldness runs in families, after all.

You have 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs.  You cannot have a 1% heritage of anything, the minimum is 1/46 = 2.17%.

Unless you're descended from Pocahontas, of course.   

For the purposes of discussion, I married a wasian from Paris.  I don't know what that makes my kids...tricontinental?

I was quoting Pete not you.

And DNA Analysis is much much more than 23 Pairs of chromosomes. Its the analysis of SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms and STRs, short tandem repeats.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

sneaky, my friend, I was born and grew to adulthood in Texas.  Back in my day, every student in a Texas school, was taught this - Before Texas agreed to join the union, they insisted on the right to leave the union, and that was included in the documents.  It was/is the only state to have that protection to leave if they want.  They will not leave.

@Victoria33

I do not believe that to be true. The ORIGINAL 13 Colonies agreed to join a VOLUNTARY union. I do not THINK any area that later became a state had that sort of agreement,except maybe Texas,but I could be wrong on that part.

What does joining a VOLUNTARY UNION mean to you or anyone else you know?

[sneakypete]

I was quoting Pete not you.

And DNA Analysis is much much more than 23 Pairs of chromosomes. Its the analysis of SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms and STRs, short tandem repeats.

@Elderberry

Speak English,dammit!