25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession
AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,174
Location: Portland, Oregon
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/angr ... secession/
_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!
I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,174
Location: Portland, Oregon
Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.
This right here. This right here is, basically, the solution to the entire problem.
The Civil War went down because one half of the country wanted to tell the other half of the country that it must structure its society and its economy in a way that was beneficial primarily to the first half, largely at the expense of the second. Sadly, slavery was just a drum to bang; other than a few pure-hearted abolitionists, Northerners only gave a crap for the fate of the African slave insofar as it would be more beneficial to the North to have them working as domestics and factory laborers at starvation wages. The Union Army wasn't interested in equality or emancipation-- it was just a convenient banner to wave. The Union Army was interested in hanging on to a huge swath of industrial and agricultural resources, and that's ALL.
The same deal is going down today. A handful of oligarchs are interested-- very interested-- in controlling the whole pie. I wish we could go back to having 50 sovereign states with a small federal authority to work out the stuff that we really all have to do together...
...but that isn't bloody likely to happen.
Secessionists-- and possibly federalists too-- can look forward to being neutralized by an awesome display of force.
_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"
Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.
I understand what Secession means.
My question is TO what form of government?
If this form has failed then what form do they suggest?
If they want the same form of government then this form hasn't failed yet, maybe just needs the leadership rearranged.
Probably 25% of any group body would like things massively changed, especially if things are not currently going well for them.
Especially in this economy...
_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus
Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.
Madison wrote in a letter to Daniel Webster that unless a state were "seceding from intolerable oppression," which would be an exercise of the right of revolution, unilateral secession would be "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h3s14.html
He mentioned this with regards to the controversy over South Carolina's threatened secession during the Jackson Administration. He was opposed to South Carolina seceding then (as well as nullification), as made clear in his comments at the beginning of the linked letter to Daniel Webster.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Well, given that the 13 colonies weren't suffering under "intolerable oppression" when they left, that makes their seccession from the empire wrong.
Re. a "faith solemnly pledged", one generation cannot bind it's successors (see: Jefferson). That may have been valid during the early years, but it certainly isn't now, since no-one alive today bound themselves.
But all that is academic, and ignores that in practice today, it's generally considered right to secede if a majority favour it. Unless it damages US, Chinese, or Russian interests. Then the UN Security Council will block you.
I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.
This right here. This right here is, basically, the solution to the entire problem.
The Civil War went down because one half of the country wanted to tell the other half of the country that it must structure its society and its economy in a way that was beneficial primarily to the first half, largely at the expense of the second. Sadly, slavery was just a drum to bang; other than a few pure-hearted abolitionists, Northerners only gave a crap for the fate of the African slave insofar as it would be more beneficial to the North to have them working as domestics and factory laborers at starvation wages. The Union Army wasn't interested in equality or emancipation-- it was just a convenient banner to wave. The Union Army was interested in hanging on to a huge swath of industrial and agricultural resources, and that's ALL.
The same deal is going down today. A handful of oligarchs are interested-- very interested-- in controlling the whole pie. I wish we could go back to having 50 sovereign states with a small federal authority to work out the stuff that we really all have to do together...
...but that isn't bloody likely to happen.
Secessionists-- and possibly federalists too-- can look forward to being neutralized by an awesome display of force.
If you read the secession ordinances as well as the Confederate Constitution, you can see slavery was a big part of the secession of those 11 states:
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinan ... ession.htm
This is a source that compares the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions side by side, the latter of which makes liberal mention of the term slavery, providing protections for the institution, prohibiting its abolition, etc.:
http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
If you compare the two, you'll see that the Confederate Constitution did little to weaken the power of the federal government compared to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. it was actually a lot less protective of states' rights than commonly assumed), but did a lot to strengthen slavery.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Madison wrote in a letter to Daniel Webster that unless a state were "seceding from intolerable oppression," which would be an exercise of the right of revolution, unilateral secession would be "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h3s14.html
He mentioned this with regards to the controversy over South Carolina's threatened secession during the Jackson Administration. He was opposed to South Carolina seceding then (as well as nullification), as made clear in his comments at the beginning of the linked letter to Daniel Webster.
That was in 1833. I am describing the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession ... ition_Acts about which "Thomas Jefferson, while sitting as Vice President of the United States in 1799, wrote to James Madison of his conviction in 'a reservation of th[ose] rights resulting to us from these palpable violations [the Alien and Sedition Acts]' and, if the federal government did not return to 'the true principles of our federal compact', [he was determined to] 'sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.'"
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,737
Location: the island of defective toy santas
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,737
Location: the island of defective toy santas