Secession Movement in the United States

[Greed and Death]

Is Texas really a "nation"?

You could make a good case for it, community of people with common culture, history etc.

They have, actually.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

So in short you don't support self-determinism?

Did Texas ever vote on whether to become part of the USA? If they did then the electorate would probably have been a minority of the population.

Why should a minority of dead people overrule a majority of living people?

Have a referendum or at least actually elect secessionist people to the Texas Legislature/ US congress. Ask Congress and they will likely say yes, in this day and Age the trend globally is to Recognize secessionist movements.

[National Bohemia]

Why are marriage vows morally non-binding, but papers signed by long-dead slavers morally enforceable by slaughter? Clearly you don't see the United States as a family of affiliated states -- it's a street gang, and woe on the poor son of a bitch who wants to quit.

Papers signed by long dead slavers. LoL. Wasn't it last night that you were defending the constitution as some mythical document that we must never go against?

Also "Slavers" are the very people that tried to secede the first time, just saying.

Insofar as it doesn't conflict with natural human rights (such as self-determination), the Constitution is a remarkably important piece of law to obey. You support despotism, so there is no point arguing rights with you, only killing you.

[Delanshar]

You support despotism, so there is no point arguing rights with you, only killing you.

!

[Armenia Reborn]

I don't see how this translates to indissoluble unity.

Keep reading. That's a huge block of text, and the substantial part is bolded for your own convenience.

You may have a valid point and be correct on this.

However, legal or not, Id still support the will of the people in any state to do as they wish, including secession. Furthermore, I believe the Supreme Court is in error here, as it was in the Dredd Scott ruling. I would point to the Declaration of Independence: " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

[The Zeonic States]

And trying to attempt a Modern blockade of the same territory while guarding against the Modern Hazards of open modern sea warfare would be best avoided.

This is where having a modern navy comes in handy.

Besides if worst came to worst they could just slip them in through the gulf of Mexico and get them in through Texas, pity they didn't have that back during the original conflict ah well.

Actually, they did have Texas back then. The Union had ships in the Gulf of Mexico during the Civil War and there was a minor offensive into Texas where troops were landed on the Gulf Coast.

I doubt the "Loyalist" Navy would want to be within spitting distance of that series of ports, No doubt Mexico would be guarding its waterways extremely carefully, one misplaced shot and the "United" States just got another enemy.

I don't see how Mexican ships would pose any more danger to the loyalists than they would to the secesh. It's not that hard for us to avoid firing on Mexican ships. Contrary to your apparent belief, Mexico is not itching to pick a fight with the US, and would probably cooperate with us as long as Mexican ships were permitted to continue using Mexican ports.

Ultimately? I think the blockade idea is a tad bit outdated in this context mainly due to them being able to rely on open international shipping ways and the United States being unable to do much about unless if they want to risk war with another Nation at the same as possbibly fighting off a seccesion once again.

Of course this merely conjecture upon both our parts, While i think the blockade is a outdated and ultimately ineffective idea in a modern day United States climate if you believe otherwise you are more then welcome to.

International shipping ways only offer as much protection as the navies that are willing to fight to keep them open, and I really don't see why you think other nations would be willing to go to war with the US to protect the secesh.

I support the Notion that International parties would be more interested in another exporter and importer of goods then fighting to deny them a market.

[National Bohemia]

You support despotism, so there is no point arguing rights with you, only killing you.

!

What, alarmed that I take human rights seriously? When one party seeks to extinguish the other's rights by force, it must be defeated or destroyed. That is, killed.

[Samuraikoku]

You may have a valid point and be correct on this.

However, legal or not, Id still support the will of the people in any state to do as they wish, including secession. Furthermore, I believe the Supreme Court is in error here, as it was in the Dredd Scott ruling.

You're entitled to your own opinion, your own house and your own plane, but the fact remains this is the Court's decision, and it is final.

[Samuraikoku]

!

What, alarmed that I take human rights seriously? When one party seeks to extinguish the other's rights by force, it must be defeated or destroyed. That is, killed.

Shouldn't advocate this, friend.

[Delanshar]

Have a referendum or at least actually elect secessionist people to the Texas Legislature/ US congress. Ask Congress and they will likely say yes, in this day and Age the trend globally is to Recognize secessionist movements.

And since when is the US forced to obey global trends? Recognizing secessionism legitimizes them in the eyes of the people. And this is generally a bad idea.

[Forsakia]

So in short you don't support self-determinism?

Did Texas ever vote on whether to become part of the USA? If they did then the electorate would probably have been a minority of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation#Annexation_by_joint_resolution

Why should a minority of dead people overrule a majority of living people?

They wouldn't be overruling anything. The majority of living people have a different system to go through than back then.

You mean a system where the rest of the country decides whether they should be independent or not? Sort of takes the "self" bit out of "self-determinism".

[National Bohemia]

What, alarmed that I take human rights seriously? When one party seeks to extinguish the other's rights by force, it must be defeated or destroyed. That is, killed.

Shouldn't advocate this, friend.

No friend of mine, pal. I mean, bud. Er...

[Delanshar]

!

What, alarmed that I take human rights seriously? When one party seeks to extinguish the other's rights by force, it must be defeated or destroyed. That is, killed.

Secession isn't a right just like murder isn't a right. Both of them you advocate. And both are illegal.

[Samuraikoku]

You mean a system where the rest of the country decides whether they should be independent or not? Sort of takes the "self" bit out of "self-determinism".

No matter how you want to shield it under "self-determinism", the State of Texas, or any other secessionist state, has two possibilities: Consent of the other States in Congress, or revolution. And we all know how the second turned out.

[National Bohemia]

What, alarmed that I take human rights seriously? When one party seeks to extinguish the other's rights by force, it must be defeated or destroyed. That is, killed.

Secession isn't a right just like murder isn't a right. Both of them you advocate. And both are illegal.

Whose choice is it to start a war? Look at what the conflict is -- one party is a population which wishes to leave, and the other party is voluntarily shedding blood to prevent that population from being allowed to govern itself. As much as you admire the great monsters of history, make mine freedom.

[Armenia Reborn]

Recognizing secessionism legitimizes them in the eyes of the people. And this is generally a bad idea.

Why is it bad?

[National Bohemia]

Recognizing secessionism legitimizes them in the eyes of the people. And this is generally a bad idea.

Why is it bad?

The examples given were that secession led to the end of three oppressive empires: Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

[Ceannairceach]

Why is it bad?

The examples given were that secession led to the end of three dictatorial empires: Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

Rome stopped having dictators after the end of the Republic, and I don't recall either of the latter ever having them.

[Armenia Reborn]

Why is it bad?

The examples given were that secession led to the end of three dictatorial empires: Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

[The Zeonic States]

You may have a valid point and be correct on this.

However, legal or not, Id still support the will of the people in any state to do as they wish, including secession. Furthermore, I believe the Supreme Court is in error here, as it was in the Dredd Scott ruling.

You're entitled to your own opinion, your own house and your own plane, but the fact remains this is the Court's decision, and it is final.

Until it's overturned of course.

[Forsakia]

You mean a system where the rest of the country decides whether they should be independent or not? Sort of takes the "self" bit out of "self-determinism".

No matter how you want to shield it under "self-determinism", the State of Texas, or any other secessionist state, has two possibilities: Consent of the other States in Congress, or revolution. And we all know how the second turned out.

Legally yes, but I'm talking about the principle.

You seem to think that the other states deciding whether Texas can become independent is consistent with self-determinism, I think that's not the case.

Legally I think that on self-determinism the US holds very different views on whether self-determinism is allowable depending on whether they're talking about other countries or themselves.

[Armenia Reborn]

You're entitled to your own opinion, your own house and your own plane, but the fact remains this is the Court's decision, and it is final.

Until it's overturned of course.

As the Dredd Scott case was.

[Wikkiwallana]

Hey, I'm not the one putting words in their mouths and then fapping to them.

What are you talking about?

Sorry, I misunderstood you, I was getting kinda sleepy.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No matter how you want to shield it under "self-determinism", the State of Texas, or any other secessionist state, has two possibilities: Consent of the other States in Congress, or revolution. And we all know how the second turned out.

Legally yes, but I'm talking about the principle.

You seem to think that the other states deciding whether Texas can become independent is consistent with self-determinism, I think that's not the case.

Legally I think that on self-determinism the US holds very different views on whether self-determinism is allowable depending on whether they're talking about other countries or themselves.

Principle and a buck 25 will get you a bag of chips when the law says no.

[Delanshar]

Secession isn't a right just like murder isn't a right. Both of them you advocate. And both are illegal.

Whose choice is it to start a war? Look at what the conflict is -- one party is a population which wishes to leave, and the other party is voluntarily shedding blood to prevent that population from being allowed to govern itself. As much as you admire the great monsters of history, make mine freedom.

The Federal government not only has a right but a duty to keep the Union together. If people try to secede then they are in revolt against a legitimate democratic authority. If supporting the suppression of said revolt makes me a "monster of history" then so be it.

[National Bohemia]

The examples given were that secession led to the end of three dictatorial empires: Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman.

Rome stopped having dictators after the end of the Republic, and I don't recall either of the latter ever having them.

Pardon me, I used the wrong word. The more general term "oppressive" applies to these empires, as they regarded the racial or social lower-class.