Now theres a great suggestion - Secession


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Now theres a great suggestion - Secession

Author Message
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8219
Credit: 21,803,140
RAC: 11,855
United Kingdom
Message 1306046 - Posted: 14 Nov 2012, 9:06:09 UTC

I see from several news sites that quite a few of mainly Republican states have requested to secede. What a wonderful way for Obama to balance the books, below is the latest info I could get on the per capita contribution to the Federal coffers.

Alabama, $-5,130 Arkansas, $1,723 Colorado, $2,176 Florida, $-581 Georgia, $433 Indiana, $-723 Kentucky, $-3,012 Louisiana, $-2,180 Michigan, $-171 Mississippi, $-6,765 Missouri, $-1,190 Montana, $-4,149 North Carolina, $1,108 North Dakota, $-4,856 Oregon, $-474 South Carolina, $-3,756 Tennessee, $-603 Texas $2,243

As you can see most of the States listed are net takers and therefore for the rest, Federal income would go up and then there could be more Federal spending or tax cuts.

On some lists I did see New York and New Jersey list and they are big net payers, but maybe he can pick and choose which ones to go or stay.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 7903
Credit: 26,794,410
RAC: 29,622
United States
Message 1306094 - Posted: 14 Nov 2012, 14:17:47 UTC

That was tried once before here. Didnt work out so hot. Over 600,000 dead, Untold wounded, Devastated economy, And hatred that still festers today on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

The hotheads wont get far, One thing to sign a pettion, Another to get it done.
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,240
RAC: 132
Korea, North
Message 1306140 - Posted: 14 Nov 2012, 17:41:05 UTC

the only state that actually had the right to secede was Texas. Texas did so during the Civil war.

THe problem with Texas's Secession is that they took up arms against their former country. This IIRC negates any treaty Texas had with the Union and therefore, disallows any notion that Texas could ever secede from the union after the civil war.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1404
Credit: 792,338
RAC: 619
United States
Message 1306249 - Posted: 14 Nov 2012, 22:37:12 UTC - in response to Message 1306140.
Last modified: 14 Nov 2012, 22:41:57 UTC

the only state that actually had the right to secede was Texas. Texas did so during the Civil war.

THe problem with Texas's Secession is that they took up arms against their former country. This IIRC negates any treaty Texas had with the Union and therefore, disallows any notion that Texas could ever secede from the union after the civil war.



Uhh... I don't think you are correct on that one.

On April 15th, 1869, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case Texas vs. White that no state ever had a right of secession, therefore Texas never seceded.

Among other things, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote in the majority opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?


I do not agree with this, BUT... here in the USA, it does not matter what the Constitution says. It does not matter what a treaty says. It does not matter what a law says. The only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court says the Constitution/Treaty/Law says, the last time the Supreme Court said anything about it.

Call me a little funny in the head if you want to do so, but I happen to believe in the right of self-determination. That is to say that a group of people have the right to organize and live under any government they wish. A right the US Government is very keen to support and demand... As long as it is in another nation. They seem to think it doesn't apply here.

And as far as the 'took up arms' thing, I think you will find that the Union under Lincoln initiated hostilities. 6 days after the secession of South Carolina, a couple of companies of Union artillery occupied (without orders to do so) Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860. Ignoring peaceful requests from the Government of South Carolina that Union army leave, on Jan. 9, 1861 the Union attempted to resupply them with men and war materials. THAT was the act of war that started the Civil War. The CSA did not take up arms against the USA. The USA militarily invaded the CSA.
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1306259 - Posted: 14 Nov 2012, 23:13:29 UTC - in response to Message 1306249.

And as far as the 'took up arms' thing, I think you will find that the Union under Lincoln initiated hostilities. 6 days after the secession of South Carolina, a couple of companies of Union artillery occupied (without orders to do so) Fort Sumter on Dec. 26, 1860. Ignoring peaceful requests from the Government of South Carolina that Union army leave, on Jan. 9, 1861 the Union attempted to resupply them with men and war materials. THAT was the act of war that started the Civil War. The CSA did not take up arms against the USA. The USA militarily invaded the CSA.

Interesting revision. I think you will find the troops were in South Carolina on the day it voted secession. The moved from several locations to a single location, yes without orders from Lincoln. If you wish to call an operation to supply a diplomatic outpost an invasion ... Then again you may think all the diplomatic missions, counsels, compounds etc. as invasions of US soil.


____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 7903
Credit: 26,794,410
RAC: 29,622
United States
Message 1306475 - Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 17:36:42 UTC

It was a federal fort. How could federal troops have been invaders? Just as Harpers ferry was a federal arsenal, Untill invaded by CSA troops.
____________

Message boards : Politics : Now theres a great suggestion - Secession

Copyright © 2014 University of California