Should Secession be an option?

DrkSdBls said:

To those who cry about not getting their way comparing themselves to our Founding Fathers, who sought break away from a Oppressive and Unjust ruler, Now That is what I find Funny.

Click to expand...

The British didn't see themselves as oppressive and unjust. A good case can actually be made for the injustice of the colonists' greavances.
Nor is any of this the point. The point is, that for a country that came into being as a secession claiming this was justified, to claim that secession from it, itself, is an act of treason that cannot be justified, is ridiculously funny

DrkSdBls said:

The Question though is, what was it that our Founding Fathers were "Betraying" that is analogous to the Whiners and Malcontents of today?

Click to expand...

Between the government of 18th century Britain and that of the US of today, I'm quite sure which one I have a more favorable view of.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Between the government of 18th century Britain and that of the US of today, I'm quite sure which one I have a more favorable view of.

Click to expand...

Why is the form of government of a country relevant? Is it legitimate to secede from monarchies, but not republics? What kind of messed up logic is THAT?

To the British, the Founding Fathers of the US were just as much "Whiners" and "Malcontents" as it is claimed those people wishing to secede from the US today, is.

motherprayer said:

What about citizens of those states who do not wish to secede? Does their vote not count?

Click to expand...

This is one of the strongest arguments for the smallest government it's possible to have. Otherwise the "tyranny of the majority" simply becomes more tyrannical.

If the majority of people in a state want to secede then those who do not are outvoted. You might as well look back at the 2012 election and ask "What about citizens who wanted President Romney, does their vote not count?"

Easy G (G²);61951155 said:

​

Click to expand...

Wow, I hope this book is satire

If a southerner wrote a book about the north with the same title "Better off without 'em" with a picture of the Star of David, a Rainbow, and the Black Panthers logo...everyone would be crying "hate speech"

miniverchivi said:

Wow, I hope this book is satire

If a southerner wrote a book about the north with the same title "Better off without 'em" with a picture of the Star of David, a Rainbow, and the Black Panthers logo...everyone would be crying "hate speech"

Click to expand...

But don't you see? That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND STUFFZ

LionofJudahDK said:

But don't you see? That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND STUFFZ

Click to expand...

Plus, I don't see how those pictures are meant to be an insult, it's got Jesus, Republican Logo, Guns, and a naked person. I think everyone likes at least one of those things

LionofJudahDK said:

The British didn't see themselves as oppressive and unjust. A good case can actually be made for the injustice of the colonists' greavances.
Nor is any of this the point. The point is, that for a country that came into being as a secession claiming this was justified, to claim that secession from it, itself, is an act of treason that cannot be justified, is ridiculously funny

Click to expand...

Likewise, the Democrats in Washington don't see themselves as oppressive and unjust

miniverchivi said:

Wow, I hope this book is satire

If a southerner wrote a book about the north with the same title "Better off without 'em" with a picture of the Star of David, a Rainbow, and the Black Panthers logo...everyone would be crying "hate speech"

Click to expand...

Tolerance is a one way street. Since, as the book cover implies, Christians and and Republicans are haters, it's ok to hate the haters.

You can write anything you want as long as you aren't threatening or lying.
If you do not fight to secede, then you are still a part of the whole.

Just as in Lincoln's time, armed rebellion must be met with military force.

It is just a vent for frustration of simple people. 48+% of people didn't get the person they wanted to win, this happens every election(the loss not the petition), the union must remain.
Put your energy into preventing the president from destroying the country, rather then destroying the country yourself, and find a person that more people can vote for next election. Maybe put your energy into showing the press for what it is, one arm of the liberal party, show how they keep a positive light on Obama and a negitive light on anyone that opposes him.
Alot of people vote against a candidate rather then for one.

There is alot to do, and we don't need to waste time talking of dividing up the nation. Do you really think the liberals will let the working 52% leave the 48% without, in a divided nation?
They might not have figured out the high tax areas are bleeding green into low tax areas, but they will realize that if the vast majority of people with money leave, they will have no one to pay the "fair share" that they promised the non-workers.

DrkSdBls said:

even our Founder Fathers called themselves. They never caimed to be otherwise.

The Question though is, what was it that our Founding Fathers were "Betraying" that is analogous to the Whiners and Malcontents of today?

To those who cry about not getting their way comparing themselves to our Founding Fathers, who sought break away from a Oppressive and Unjust ruler, Now That is what I find Funny.

Click to expand...

It is interesting to consider the ways that the Founding Fathers considered themselves as traitors to Britain - and what's even MORE interesting is that others often forget the British side of things, as many sent to places in the South from the Empire like Georgia were sent there due to being prisoners and folks who either committed crimes or had enormous debts they couldn't pay off.....and yet when they got there, they made an enormous economical giant that competed with the empire's interest.

Again, British used North America as a penal colony both in the usual sense and through the system of indentured servitude from the 1610s to the American Revolution. Convicts would be transported by merchants and auctioned off to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The reason than the ship Mayflower could reach the United States without restriction from Britain was because the land was not 'the land of opportunity' yet. Rather, North America was a land of wretched people, who were almost castigated by being transported to such a distant place from Britain.

As time passed, the United States lost its purpose as a prison, but still indentured servitude existed to continue to provide the labor for the colonies. Among many American colonies of Britain, especially Georgia served its role as a penal colony. When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements. Some of these included Norfolk Island, Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) and New South Wales. But the British still felt that American territory should've stayed in the position it was.

And when success started to develop, part of the British mindset was that they should still "pay off their debt" via taxes - even if they were allowed a greater level of independence with what they set up when in exile. After the French-Indian war, the British were very strapped for cash due to how much heavy borrowing had come to finance the war....and thus, they looked to their own colonists as a means of handling things. Having far-flung colonial possessions (besides serving as a penal colony) was to generate wealth for the mother country and the private companies working there.

Of course, it's not argued that all the colonists were "prisoners" - but for many who later rebelled, it is odd to consider their actions in light of their roots/ancestors who came over. When the British strategy in America concentrated on a campaign in the southern colonies (as said best in Southern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War ) - as the British commanders saw the "southern strategy" as a more viable plan since the south was perceived as being more strongly Loyalist - prison debt and penal colony backgrounds were not forgotten.

For reference:

• Exploring Corrections in America - Page 33
• Pushes & Pulls: Why Do People Migrate? - Page 16
• Prison & Slavery - A Surprising Comparison - Page 4
• Australia and the American Revolution - The Order of the Founders ...
• Sweet Land of Security: America's Responses to Terror--From the
• TheCommon Law Abroad: Constitutional and Legal Legacy of the ... - Page 317
• Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International ... - Volume 1 - Page 465

From a British perspective, to have prisoners/British citizens who should've technically be doing time choosing to rebel against their authority was one reason amongst many as to why they felt the Revolution was without proper foundation.

The war of independence was declared by the governments of the colonies. In most cases, these were elected governments, often with leaders appointed by England. It was these governments that declared the tax rates unjust, the forced conscription of sailors and theft of property as immoral and illegal, and these governments were the ones that raised an army to enforce the rule of law in the Americas. By 1775, many of the colonists were fourth generation Americans. They had never been to England, and over the previous 100 years cultural and language differences had already developed. The colonies’ assemblies may have had pictures of the King on their walls, but the point is that those legislatures were duly constituted, and were the legitimate government in the Americas. When they declared independence, and rejected the legal prerogative of British Parliament to tax, it then became an American’s duty to obey their government. One could just as easily argue that it would have been a form of rebellion against government to refuse to support the revolution.

William Penn’s “holy experiment” was described by him as “self appointed government under the crown"...and because of this, it is said that even the British crown recognized the legitimacy of the local governments, and expected British subjects to do the same.

In England, many people still refer to the Revolutionary War as "The Rebellion of the American Colonies." It is interesting to me that often times how you view a thing depends upon where you are standing. You could argue that the claim of authority of the Americas by England was arbitrary. If you were a fourth generation American, and had never been to England, a legitimate question to ask is: “Why is the British King my authority?” The British parliament claimed that they had the right to tax the citizens of the Americas. Why were the Indians not the governing authority? Why not the French? Why not the American governments?

They all also claimed that same right. In fact, this is precisely the issue that solidified George Washington’s understanding of British rule in the Americas. As an officer in the British military, Washington’s first mission was to tell a French military outpost in Ohio to disband and leave the area. The French claimed the area fell under their authority, and the Indians agreed with the French. The British claimed it was theirs, and their claim was in essence based on their maps, which simply extended the boarders of the colonies indefinitely to the West.

Simply because a government makes a map with you under their authority, does not then bind you under the obligation. However, it does show the power of geography and maps - and the ways perspective makes a world of difference since folks complained on the British making arbitrary claims - and yet for the Native Americans who experienced the same at the hands of the colonists who took land from them/claimed it for their own even before the Revolution, they were wondering how inconsistent folks were.

Additionally, from the British side, if saying their claims were arbitrary, there's also the reality of how their actions were deeply embedded in the European international law tradition - as established in 1650. And with a better understanding of the legal relationship between the colonial governments and the British crown, a lot of things click. Some are of the mindset that the Revolution was a war between George’s greed in trying to finance England on the backs of the colonists (and all without representation from the colonies) and the colonist’s greed to keep taxes low and to grasp what power they could in Parliament. ..with others feeling that there was no submission by the colonies to England’s authority.

Considering the ways things connect to today (As it concerns how many now harp on secession being necessary due to the Tax Hikes/Tax reforms they don't like by President Obama), it's interesting seeing how England’s claims of authority was never disputed until taxation rose too high. Citizens and leaders remained loyal to England, until taxation sharply rose.. So this justification only emerged after the colonists became offended at George’s constant tax hikes and then started looking for excuses for independence. Moreover, for others arguing that most of the inhabitants of the colonies around 1776 were somehow blissfully unaware they were British subjects, under British rule, they alll spoke English and they sang English songs. Moreover, they all took pride in English patriotism. In that view, to argue that they were obligated to support their local government against England is incomplete - as others have pointed out that we owe increased loyalty to increased authority: if the mayor of your (or my) small town and Barack Obama show up on your doorstep and each one tells you to follow him (one east and the other west), who will you follow? You better follow the President.

The right to rule came because the Brits were the conquerors. They had cleared Native Americans from what became the British Colonies (and that's a serious moral issue there, but that's for another time...) and they settled that area. Their conquest and current control validated their claim to "set and enforce laws". As for colonial self-governance, did the Crown ever relinquish authority over the British Colonies in America? By analogy, let's say you come home one day and your wife tell you that you have together received a gift of $100. She asks how you want to spend it. You tell her that she might benefit from a purchase for herself and give her the freedom to buy what she would like. By giving her "self-governance" in this matter, have you abdicated your responsibility as a leader/husband or have you delegated a financial decision while retaining your authority?

There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to inconsistencies with how we view the American Revolution.

DrkSdBls said:

Why would it be Funny when that's exactly what even our Founder Fathers called themselves. They never caimed to be otherwise.

The Question though is, what was it that our Founding Fathers were "Betraying" that is analogous to the Whiners and Malcontents of today?

To those who cry about not getting their way comparing themselves to our Founding Fathers, who sought break away from a Oppressive and Unjust ruler, Now That is what I find Funny.

Click to expand...

With the Founding Fathers, even they themselves were deemed as "oppressive" and "traitors" at times by the same people they fought alongside during the American Revolution - as it concerns the ways government was seen. I'm reminded of what happened with alcohol. George Washington was the largest whiskey producer in America... . To be fair, America was much smaller back then, it was before the revolution in 1776, the Word of Wisdom was unknown, and there was no Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any real democracy, so things were much different then, than they are today.

Later, he got himself into trouble with what's known as the he Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, which was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791. Concerning the event, farmers who used their grain in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax which was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay.

Farmers who resisted, many war veterans, were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation...and throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax.

Later, resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. After the alarm was raised, more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. George Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 15,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. Consequently, the rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

Ultimately, the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however.

• Text of the 1791 excise act
• "Whiskey and Geography
• Washington's Proclamation of August 7, 1794
• "Why the Whiskey Rebellion Is Worth Recalling Now
• George Washington's Proclamation of September 15, 1792
• "The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794: A Democratic Working-Class Insurrection​

_________________


Amazing that the same government/people making it who may complain on not being taxed fairly can also have times where they do the same if it is seen as "necessary" - and it is for that reason that many have long felt that the British also had something to be considered when it came to taxing in things they may've felt were necessary to fund other endeavors.

History is never as "black and white" as many make it out to be - and the American Revolution/dynamics impacting what happened after it are no different.

• Myths of the American Revolution | History & Archaeology

The simple answer to the OP's question is YES, but there should be a protocol so that "interstate" relations continue (such as travel, extradition, mail) with little interruption and so that no unecessary risk of harm befall neighbors. Otherwise you have war AGAIN...

miniverchivi said:

Wow, I hope this book is satire

If a southerner wrote a book about the north with the same title "Better off without 'em" with a picture of the Star of David, a Rainbow, and the Black Panthers logo...everyone would be crying "hate speech"

Click to expand...

If a Southerner wrote a book about the North on "Better of without ' em" (as others did in the form of critiques/treasties before, during and after the Civil War on why the North needed to be seperate from the South), it'd not be surprising when seeing history.

Of course, as the North never fought to secede from the other Southern States, of course someone writing about why the South doing so can be validated is not really a big deal. And on the issue, controversial isn't the same as satire. Moreover, unless you actually READ the book, it'd be premature/inconsistent to go by the title alone/a picture and assume what it's about. That'd be like saying that any book out there with the symbol of a Fish (as they used in early Christianity) must automatically be about supporting Christians when the symbol is for done for other reasons...or seeing a book with a picture of a pastor in a rich suit and the book being entitled "Christless CHristianity", only to wrongly precede to assuming it's bashing all who are rich Christians Some things are done for the sake of controversial imagery to raise a point (as it concerns stereotypes. That said, it'd be more wise to actually read the book before trying to critique it. A lot of the critiques are spot on and have been noted by many folks living in the SOUTH for a LONG time.....be it with the ways neo-slavery occurred or how racial discrimination still occurs or the ways the Bible Belt has often done a lot of "End of the World" logic whenever it doesn't get its way and other believers get caught in the crossfire. I don't agree with everything on it since many good things about the South are ignored (and living in the South my entire life, that's a pity) - but some things he noted have been joked on/noted for a long time. Sometimes, it takes a political comedy mixed with sociological/historical review to make a point


For some book reviews that addressed the issue:

• Jim Loves Books: Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for
• Daily Kos: Book review: Chuck Thompson's 'Better Off Without 'Em

If Not For Grace said:

The simple answer to the OP's question is YES, but there should be a protocol so that "interstate" relations continue (such as travel, extradition, mail) with little interruption and so that no unecessary risk of harm befall neighbors. Otherwise you have war AGAIN...

Click to expand...

Woudn't that open up the door for travelling between countries that are not our own and thus be an issue of proper boundaries? We don't have roads into Mexico we can simply go on so that folks can cross in/out because they don't have the same political system as we do and are not supposed to have others use the resources of the nations without verification of who they are.

Technically, when a state secedes, it puts itself into the same struggle that migrants have when they're not allowed into certain places because they're not citizens of that area. The issue of roads would be one thing amongst many, as one wouldn't be able to demand the use of Military bases or revenue or other federal benefits - and the same as it concerns National Parks in states wanting to secede.

I believe that any state that its citizens want to leave should be allowed to do so. However I believe that then the citizens after a certain date are no longer US citizens and would have to go through the same passporet control and immigrastion policies as other foreeign nationals

psalms 91 said:

I believe that any state that its citizens want to leave should be allowed to do so. However I believe that then the citizens after a certain date are no longer US citizens and would have to go through the same passporet control and immigrastion policies as other foreeign nationals

Click to expand...

I suppose an interesting question would relate to things like who owned the interstates. If, say, MD and WV were to secede from the union it would seem like a huge hassle for people wanting to use the short section of I-81 that clips briefly through the two states on the way from PA to VA, if they had to go through passport control three times in barely 50 miles.

At the same time it would seem like an impossible option to expect free passage along I-81 and put passport control at every intersection.

psalms 91 said:

I believe that any state that its citizens want to leave should be allowed to do so. However I believe that then the citizens after a certain date are no longer US citizens and would have to go through the same passporet control and immigrastion policies as other foreeign nationals

Click to expand...

True. And that can be a very sticky battle with diasterous results - and opening the door for the U.S to quickly break down.

contango said:

I suppose an interesting question would relate to things like who owned the interstates. If, say, MD and WV were to secede from the union it would seem like a huge hassle for people wanting to use the short section of I-81 that clips briefly through the two states on the way from PA to VA, if they had to go through passport control three times in barely 50 miles.

At the same time it would seem like an impossible option to expect free passage along I-81 and put passport control at every intersection.

Click to expand...

The Highway system is indeed so vast that trying to reshape it (although necessary in line with legal principle of border checks for differing countries) would be a huge task in/of itself...as the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System is so extensive one would wonder how in the world are borders going to be made that could effectively manage what he set up....and how to divide up something and ensure that all people in the U.S benefit from it. With multiple differing nations present in the U.S if secession developed, all would be seeking to take ownership of the system - with the others who didn't secede feeling the burn from it if other new nations decided to make travel/access more difficult than necessary....unless people decided to go back to using highway routes that were present before the Federally funded interstate was developed (which would take LONGer for others - and even then, patrol/securtiy development would need to be increased for principles to be honored).







Obviously, this is a time-honored practice - as Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System was really the Bureau of Public Roads’ Interregional Highway System. And there is no doubt that the Federal Railroad Administration is thrilled that Obama has adopted its plan....for it has much potential, just as the TransInternational Raildoad system developed by Abraham Lincoln was very significant in what it offered the Union when he was developing it admist the secessions of the States going on. By looking at the Interstate System, one can see how an undertaking like high speed rail might be possible. Federal and state cooperation would be key. With several recently inaugurated governors voicing their concern over such a project, development of the Interstate provides some clues as to how to deal with a potentially massive undertaking. The interstate system completion at a cost of $129 billion, was a cooperative federal-state undertaking. Each state transportation department managed its own program for location, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The states also were responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the system, and in 1981, they began receiving federal funds for maintenance.

However, with other states breaking away, hinderance in national development can be in a very real reality. And without Federal funding, one could expect a break down in the quality of those roads and more problems than others may wish to deal with.

In addition to addressing the issue of who would own the interstates and how to divide that up with proper patrol, there's the reality that having things more micro-managed due to new borders placed up can be so tedious that it opens up the door for other things to creep in that're harming the nation. I say that in light of how t[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]he Interstate system in North America is used for human trafficking. [/FONT]



The highways are already being used for things that are illegal like smuggling/trafficking...and secession would make things that much more of a hassle in keeping that stuff out since people could get into areas with less restrictions and then go from there with new markets. Take Ohio, for example. The Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission concluded that, due to the very nature of human trafficking, it is virtually impossible to determine the exact number of victims in Ohio at any given time; however, the commission has identified 1,800 victims of human trafficking within the state. In total, Ohio is home to an estimated 6,316 at-risk individuals — 3,437 foreign-born and 2,879 American-born — mostly women.

Toledo, which has been called by one federal investigator “the number one teen prostitution location in America,” is home to 1,000 victims of sex trafficking. These victims are almost exclusively American-born girls and shockingly range from 12 to 17 years in age. In the Columbus area, 800 victims (mostly foreign-born women) of labor trafficking have been identified.

As shocking as some of these facts and figures might be, a report on the subject by the Rand Corp. says that human trafficking incidents are significantly underreported. Ohio’s involvement in the human trafficking industry is fostered by several factors:
There are other states which have similar problems. Texas is a hub for international human trafficking because of its many busy interstate highways, international airports, countless bus stations, the shipping commerce through the Gulf of Mexico, and its shared border with Mexico. This border is North America’s number one supply site for young children used in sex and labor trafficking. In addition, Texas houses the I-10 corridor, which the Department of Justice designated as the number one route for human trafficking. Texas continues to serve as the biggest point of illegal entry into the United States largely because traffickers are able to get aliens across the border without documents. Trafficking in Texas especially flourishes due to three major factors: proximity, demographics, and the large immigrant labor force.

• Truckers Against Human Trafficking
• Truckers Against Trafficking (28:11)
• Springfield urged to watch for human trafficking

Due to the ways that things are already tight enough as they are, to allow for secession of Texas and other states would lead to more break-down on the controls set in place to curtail things harming the nation in general with trafficking - for you'd have to quickly come up with protocols to keep things at bay without Federal enforcement and Federal aid in patrolling borders. Making it a State secession focus would mean that federal patrols would go down in favor of placing them at the borders of the New independent countries...and that's detrimental to all people.

jayem said:

Secession will never be more than a fantasy for a handful of true believers. It's a fringe position that appeals only to small minority. Rightly or wrongly, modern life for the vast majority of Americans is dependent on a functioning federal government. People who have worked their entire lives paying into SS, and Medicare, will not voluntarily relinquish these for some neo-antifederalist pipe dream. And there is no way in hell that seceding states could take over these obligations on their own.
.

Click to expand...

Sadly, the folks who want to break away are not really concerned about the people left behind who have to deal with it. Seceding States simply cannot handle themselves on their own - unless, of course, other nations wanted to jump in and take advantage of the situation to their advantage.

Let's get real. We're stuck with each other, and we have to make the best of it

Click to expand...

Indeed.