If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

Am I to presume you do not believe the States, meeting in conventions, ( ratifying ) created the general government?

Furthermore, am I to presume you do not believe in State nullification of law?

No offense meant, but just asking.

 

It does not matter how the government was created. The authority of the government comes from the constitution. If you allow states to go against the constitution whenever it does not suit their them, then the document is meaningless. The constitution places supreme constitutional power with the federal government, not the states.

 

The Conservative nation would be very wealthy, with the poor having more than the poor of the liberal country.

Common sense would prevail, and a MUCH smaller percentage of the conservative country would live in general anger.

I think that the Conservative country would spend very little time thinking about the Liberal country, but the Liberal country would spend LOTS of time criticizing and denigrating the Conservative country.

Oh, and whatever poor blacks and Latinos chose the Conservative country would get out of poverty much faster than the poor blacks and Latinos who stayed in the Liberal country.

 

Well I'm sorry but secessionists don't have my permission to dismember my country.

 

The civil war will be mental.

And that war will be lost by secularists.

 

It doesn't? The logical question then is where does the government get it's sovereignty and exactly how much sovereignty does it have?

The next logical question is do the states have any sovereignty left and if so, how much is left.

Is the Constitution not a Compact between the states that created the union?

 

So? That does not mean states are allowed to go against it whenever they want. It's a contract. They have to follow it, and the only way to get rid of it or change it is if they hold a convention and vote to do so.

 

Well, unfortunately, some tried that, but Mr Lincoln said no could do and 620000 Americans soldiers lost their lives and an untold number of civilians, mostly Southrons, did, as well.

 

The South attacked first, making their "peaceful secession" into open rebellion. The US government is allowed to use force to put own rebellion.

 

What does this even mean?

How does wanting to secede make you a bigot?

 

A wasteland. Filled with graves of people shot dead in "self defense", or people hanged for blasphemy,practicing witchcraft or being a witch, having an abortion, being gay, cheating at cards, crossing the border, being black in the wrong neighborhhood, or engaged in prostitution other than being a mistress. Lots of toxic waste, because no EPA regulations. The kind of environment where each individual makes his own rules, and enforces his own version of freedom using tyranny of violence.

 

Totally false. The south was merely responding to an invasion by the north. The entire war was nothing more than an attempt by northern banks and industrialists to create a hegemonic federal state, which they did.

 

Why doesn't it matter?

No, it derives from the consent of the governed. This is basic history.

And if you allow the Federal government to trample over the rights of the individual, the document is equally meaningless.

 

It doesn't directly make you a bigot, but the people pushing for secession are those that also want to go make a separate island to get away from having to pay taxes which support people they don't like supporting...in other words their taxes should only support people they think they should support, i.e. people like themselves, and most secessionist generally are white and far right with unnatural vitriol towards anyone not white. I'm generalizing, but I don't think my assessment is too farfetched.

 

Ah, but of course. Lincoln goaded them into firing on Sumter by attempting to re-provision the fort with supplies and men.

 

Yes, you are generalizing. Secession as a principle does not connote any particular views on race. It's simply a form of opposition to government authority. The American revolution was itself a form of secession. Perhaps you should incorporate some nuance into your views.

 

Well, again, America was formed by slave owners, so...I can't take that point as reason to not hold my position. As well, my views are generalized based on personal findings of those who wish to secede. If I had seen even a hint of people of color who support secession, I'd change my point. The closest I've seen is about .01% of libertarians being black and that technically can't count toward secessionists movement.

 

Yours is an outdated perception. Secession movements in the US today based on race are quite rare. The Vermont Republic, Hawaiian Sovereignty, Cascadia, the New Hampshire Free State, Puerto Rican Independence, Alaskan Independence, the Republic of Texas, the Lakotah Republic, these are the major secessionist movements in the US today and NONE of them are based on race. Please exit the 1860s and join the rest of us in the present.

 

Interesting. I'll look those up, though Puerto Rican Independence seems to be skating uphill because it's already been in discussions that they will be the 51st state soon...maybe they're attempting to go the opposite way before getting sucked into the United Vortex of America?

 

I suspect that will be what it degenerates into as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand the sentiment.

 

So very true!!

 

Any type of independence from a powerful country is uphill, to say the least. The Puerto Rican Independence movement has been around a long time. A few years ago the UN committee on decolonization approved a resolution calling on the US to recognize Puerto Rico's right to self determination. Which way they will go is yet to be determined. In the recent plebiscite on the matter about 45% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood so only time will tell. Personally, I think they'd be fools to push in that direction but one should never underestimate the shortsightedness of politicians or the complacency of the masses.

 

Another generalization that glosses over the complexity and nuance of American history. First of all, the American revolution was fought by common people, the vast majority of which did not own slaves. The first battles of the American revolution were fought in Massachusetts where the process of abolishing slavery was already underway and would be complete by 1783. Troops from Vermont came from a state that had already banned slavery in its state Constitution in 1777. In Pennsylvania, 1775, the first abolitionist society in American history would be founded, and among its members would be Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin. In fact, many of the founders, even ones who owned slaves, had come to the realization that slavery was immoral and unsustainable. In other words, slavery, after thousands of years of acceptance, was basically on its way out BECAUSE OF intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, among others.

Just because some of the people who revolted against Britain owned slaves does not mean the American revolution was about slavery or the defense of it. It was about resisting unjust political authority, and it was a form of legitimate secession. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. Generalizing just leads to errors and misunderstandings.

You're speculating and generalizing now. Why can't you just argue secession on its merits instead?

 

The reality is that most self-determination movements in the US today have nothing at all to do with race. Furthermore, all sane people know that such a movement that was based on race in today's world would never succeed and are usually just a couple of guys with a pickup truck and a website. So, people that speak about secession and racism in the same breath as if the two were one in the same are simply tilting at windmills.

 

I don't think it's that simple. Language is everything. You can't say "I want to get away from all these n----s!" However, you can say you're tired of minorities doing x or y while being white and you don't have to say that word anymore and if you site some pseudo-statistics, you look completely legit.