Secession Movement in the United States

[National Bohemia]

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

NJ

Y'all can't even pump your own gas without the government's help.

[Zephie]

NJ

Y'all can't even pump your own gas without the government's help.

Yeah, because NJ gas stations are all owned by the government

[National Bohemia]

Y'all can't even pump your own gas without the government's help.

Yeah, because NJ gas stations are all owned by the government

They are? I know some states do that with liquor stores, but never heard of gas stations.

[Zephie]

Yeah, because NJ gas stations are all owned by the government

They are? I know some states do that with liquor stores, but never heard of gas stations.

No I was joking -_-

[Grimlundt]

A lot of people are psychologically unfit for full time paid employment.
These people are known as "artists"

But seriously, prisons are full of them. Many of the homeless ... I mean people with mental illnesses.
You can't afford to employ people who will ruin your business for you.
Now should these people just be allowed to rot away on the streets?
I think not.
In a civilized society the winners look after the losers.
In part, because there but for the grace of God go I.
But more because they understand that the winners and the losers are both products of the system.
If the system were different ... well ...

That Randian right wing position about not wanting to support other folks with your tax dollars ... pretty ignorant and not well thought through.

[Trotskylvania]

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

NJ

So you're out of touch with reality, AND you live in New Jersey?

Do you have anything going for you right now, or are you going to continue believing that you're a hard working meritous individual among a sea of moochers?

[National Bohemia]

They are? I know some states do that with liquor stores, but never heard of gas stations.

No I was joking -_-

Oh, good. I'm tired.

[Zephie]

NJ

So you're out of touch with reality, AND you live in New Jersey?

Do you have anything going for you right now, or are you going to continue believing that you're a hard working meritous individual among a sea of moochers?

Why am I not surprised after putting so much effort into stating your position you dwindle down into insults when you have no response?

[Alien Space Bats]

And I say Slavery was as good as Banned with the majority of the House of Rep's being against it and the Senate adopting their attidude...

Are you familiar with the 13th Amendment?

I'll wait while you look it up.

<waits patiently, drinking coffee>

O.K., so now that you've read it, let me ask this simple question: Why was it necessary?

It's not a silly or trivial question; in fact, it's a crucial one. Why couldn't the President just eliminate slavery with an executive order, or - failing that - why couldn't Congress pass a law banning it? Why did the United States have to mes with passing a Constitutional Amendment, which requires two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of all the State legislatures?

<waits to see if you can come up with an answer>

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled that Congress had no authority to ban slavery:

The Opinion of the Court, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, stirred debate. The decision was 7–2, and every Justice besides Taney wrote a separate concurrence or dissent. For the first time since Marbury v. Madison, the Court held an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. The decision began by first concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter because Dred Scott had no standing to sue in Court, as Scott, and all people of African descent for that matter, were found not to be citizens of the United States. This decision was contrary to the practice of numerous states at the time, particularly Free states, where freed slaves did in fact enjoy the rights of citizens, such as the right to vote and hold public office. The decision of the court is often criticized as being obiter dictum because the Court went on to conclude that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

While the Court did not explicitly consider the question of whether Congress had the authority to ban slavery within a State, the Court's ruling that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in the territories. combined with the assertion that a slave could not be taken from his master absent due process of law, suggests that any attempt by Congress to ban slavery would have been overtruned by the Federal courts, and that the Taney Court would have upheld such a decision, probably by a sizable majority.

Indeed, the real question wasn't if Congress would ban slavery, but if the Court would overturn laws throughout the Free States banning the institution of slavery.

Many abolitionists and some supporters of slavery believed that Taney was prepared to rule, as soon as the issue was presented in a subsequent case, as for instance, Lemmon v. New York, that the states had no power to prohibit slavery within their borders and that state laws providing for the emancipation of slaves brought into their territory or forbidding the institution of slavery were likewise unconstitutional. Abraham Lincoln stressed this danger during his famous "House Divided" speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858:

Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. ...We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

That fear of the next Dred Scott decision shocked many in the North who had been content to accept slavery as long as it was confined within its present borders. It also put the Northern Democrats, such as Stephen A. Douglas, in a difficult position. The Northern wing of the Democratic Party had supported the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 under the banner of popular sovereignty. They argued that even if Congress did not bar the expansion of slavery into those territories, the residents of those territories could prohibit it by territorial legislation. The Dred Scott decision squarely stated that they could not exercise such prohibition, even though, strictly speaking, that issue was not before the Court...

This doctrine was wholly unacceptable to Southern Democrats, who reached a different conclusion from the same premise. They argued that if hostile territorial governments could obstruct their right to bring their slaves into a territory by refusing to protect that right, then Congress must intervene to pass a federal slave code for all the territories. They often coupled this position with threats to secede if Congress did not comply...

While some supporters of slavery treated the decision as a vindication of their rights within the union, others treated it as merely a step to spreading slavery throughout the nation, as the Republicans claimed. Convinced that any restrictions on their right to own slaves and to take them anywhere they chose were unlawful, they boasted that the coming decade would see slave auctions on Boston Common. These Southern radicals were ready to split the Democratic Party and — as events showed — the nation on that principle.

The cited case, Lemmon v. New York, is especially noteworthy. The Lemmon family had their slaves seized and emancipated under New York State law during a stop in New York City while moving to Galveston, Texas from Richmond, Virginia in November, 1852; the case was subsequently taken up by the State of Virginia on behalf of the Lemmons in 1857, even though the family had not been residents of Virginia for almost five years. The only reason the case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court is because Virginia left the Union before the Taney Court could hear it.

Had the Taney Court actually heard the case - which would have happened by the end of 1862 at the latest had Virginia not seceded - it is virtually certain that the Court would have voided all of New York's laws against slavery; in the process, it would have also stricken from the books all laws and prohibitions against slavery in at least twelve other States (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont), as well as most of a thirteenth (Minnesota). The only place laws against slavery might have survived would have been in the five States wholly comprised of portions of what was once the Northwest Territory (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin), as well as those Northeastern Minnesota counties (around and south of Duluth) that were also once part of the Territory. Because of the special relationship between the Articles of Confederation and those acts (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance) undertaken by Congress under the Articles on the one hand, and the Constitution on the other, the Taney Court might well have carved out an exception for the Great Lakes region, allowing those States (and those States alone) to continue to regulate slavery; everywhere else if would have been legalized, and abolitionism permanently thwarted, quite possibly for the remainder of American history.

At that point, with slavery legal in most of the nation (at least 28 States plus most of a 29th), and at best only subject to limits in a handful (five), it would have been next to impossible to eliminate the institution; like a cancer, it would have insinuated itself into every fiber of American society (eg., through the widespread use of slaves as domestic workers). Indeed, in all likelihood it would still be legal in America today.

The ultimate irony here is that, by seceding, the South made abolition possible. Without secession, even in the absence of a ruling striking down all State anti-slavery laws under Lemmon, getting a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery past three-quarters of the States would have been impossible. Even if we assume no opposition to such an Amendment by the four Unionist Slave States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri), the ardent opposition of the Confederate Slave States would have meant that abolition could not possibly have happened until there were 44 States in the Union. As West Virginia would have never become a State, this means that at the earliest no Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery could have been ratified before Utah achieved Statehood in January of 1896. If even one of the Unionist Slave States (like Maryland) refused to support abolition, we'd have had to wait until Alaska became a State in January of 1959 for abolition to occur - and this assumes that neither Arizona, New Mexico, nor Oklahoma would have elected to legalize slavery. Had any of these States done so, we'd still be short of what was needed to enact a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery.

[Shmuelbekistan]

Part of me wishes some of these states would secede from the union. Then an entire nation trying to move forward into the 21st century wouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a group of lunatics who still hold out hopes that the Confederacy "shall rise again." One person (I forget who) tweeted in response to these state petitions: "don't let the door hit you on the way out." I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Laerod]

Dunno. I don't recall anybody getting run over by cars because Gore and Kerry lost.

your point is?

did she state that she would run over her hubby if obama won? is there any proof that the hubby would NOT have voted for Obama?

I see one nut with another...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

My point is, the lady in your video didn't try to kill anyone. Right-wing crazy tends towards a negative "quality" far more often than left-wing crazy.

What's so appealing about "They'll take our slaves!"?

:palm: I have explained this...Nevermind.

The Union had no issue of reducing the South's economic infastrucuture, Yes as you said Slavery which was what made southern production and exporting not only possible but profitable to ruin.

Instead of say offering to buy out slaves to offer something to southern bussiness and allow them pay for employee's to replace the lost manpower of the slave labor pool, the growing disillusionment with slavery in the Senate was all but driven to outlaw the practice entirely and not offer a dime in return.

Honestly? I view that as valid ground for seccession when Your own government cares that little about utterly ruining thousands of bussiness and offering not even a simple offer to buy out slaves and instead would just pluck them away let the economic status of the south plunge into the region of what we would consider in the Modern Day third world conditions.

I have explained it better in previous posts, If you really want to see actual detailed and fully explained explainations i suggest digging around about twenty or so pages back when i last explained it, It seems the more i explain this the less of an explaination i give.

Ultimately with Abe's predoccessors Hand's off approach to the growing seccession movement he was all but allowing the Senate and congress to continue to grind the Pro slavery Movement into dust. Which is fine IF you are willing to offer something in return, It worked fairly well for the French, No massive war was fought for slavery by the french no, The government gathered funds and bought out slave holding bussiness and privately owned slaves and the economy was able to recover and continue onward with out much of a hiccup.

It's not so much that i am Pro slavery as much as i can understand the reason for distancing Yourself from a government that cares that little about You.

Yeah, when your business is based on the cruel exploitation of other human beings, you have no case. When you've spent decades trying to force other states to accept your cruel practice against their will, you have no case. When you get butthurt that suddenly an abolitionist President that promised not to push the slavery issue and engage in violent theft of government property, you have no case.

Oh, horseshit. These are not petitions from the state governments, these are from people annoyed that Romney lost. If what you say were true, Romney would be planning his inauguration, not wondering what he's going to do with himself now.

The people have a right to petition the government, the government isn't supposed to petition the goverment.
learn2constitution

These petitions are utterly stupid, as they're directed at the executive branch which has no authority over secession. Learn2constitution.

Uh huh. The so-called Greatest Generation was also the backbone of the New Deal coalition, likely to be active in militant industrial trade unions, and generally supportive of the establishment of a strong welfare state. So the comparison fails on the most fundamental level, because the generation that fought in WW2 was more left-wing than the current Occupy Wallstreeters.

Really? Going to use veterans in vain? It wouldn't be the first time libs. spit in veteran's faces.

The hypocrisy of your post is downright disgusting.

[Free South Califas]

Why the heck is the country arguing about splitting up?

It isn't. Read the thread.

What's with all the morons who think a few thousand internet signatures is suddenly a secession movement? The only notable one is Texas with 107k now, and who have by the tens of thousands voted for secession candidates.

You're on top of the ball here. I'll add that even if all 100,000+ Texan signatures are from actual Texas residents--and we have no way to know that, plus we know at least one European has forged a signature--that means at least 99.8% of Texans have declined to sign this so far. That's pretty significant, I think, considering all the coverage it's been getting.

Uh huh. The so-called Greatest Generation was also the backbone of the New Deal coalition, likely to be active in militant industrial trade unions, and generally supportive of the establishment of a strong welfare state. So the comparison fails on the most fundamental level, because the generation that fought in WW2 was more left-wing than the current Occupy Wallstreeters.

Really? Going to use veterans in vain? It wouldn't be the first time libs. spit in veteran's faces.

Republicans have blocked liberals' attempts to provide adequate care for veterans for what would be the first time in this federation. The GOP is definitely the anti-veteran party, despite how it venerates them for its own selfish ends.

[Trotskylvania]

So you're out of touch with reality, AND you live in New Jersey?

Do you have anything going for you right now, or are you going to continue believing that you're a hard working meritous individual among a sea of moochers?

Why am I not surprised after putting so much effort into stating your position you dwindle down into insults when you have no response?

It's not my fault that you have no desire to correct your misconceptions about reality. The simple fact of the matter is that you're wrong, and you have no desire to be right, so there's no point in us even having this conversation.

This is not an insult. It's a simple statement of fact. If you feel insulted, I suggest you stop being wrong and learn history before you decide to comment on it.

[Dyakovo]

Im Texan and I'm all for what Texas decides, I was born in Texas, therefore I'm Texan before American.

However I'd be a little worried about Mexico if we gain Independence, the border situation could get worse.

You're not a citizen of Texas.

[Northern Dominus]

Im Texan and I'm all for what Texas decides, I was born in Texas, therefore I'm Texan before American.

However I'd be a little worried about Mexico if we gain Independence, the border situation could get worse.

You're not a citizen of Texas.

No, no, let them think they're citizens of Texas first and foremost. I WANT to see this experiment, where they secede and find out trying to fight the drug cartels is very hard when you have no federal agents or military supplies to equip your reservists, let alone the Mexican Army who will eventually get ordered in when the violence gets to be too great even by their standards and they're ordered to put a stop to it.

[Dyakovo]

What's with all the morons who think a few thousand internet signatures is suddenly a secession movement? The only notable one is Texas with 107k now, and who have by the tens of thousands voted for secession candidates.

No one is really trying to secede. They are making an example. States are sick of our government running the nation into the ground. Its not just Conservatives, its everybody

No, it really is just "conservatives"...

---

Uh huh. Right. Sure, whatever you say. Funny, though, these petitions only appeared now. But hey, whatevs.

They appeared now because nothing f#cking changed in the government. You just stick to your "Obama is God" ideas and I'll stick to my "The entire System is broken" logic

Uh-huh... You keep telling yourself that.

---

Uh huh. The so-called Greatest Generation was also the backbone of the New Deal coalition, likely to be active in militant industrial trade unions, and generally supportive of the establishment of a strong welfare state. So the comparison fails on the most fundamental level, because the generation that fought in WW2 was more left-wing than the current Occupy Wallstreeters.

Really? Going to use veterans in vain? It wouldn't be the first time libs. spit in veteran's faces.

So what that he said is inaccurate or "spitting in veteran's faces"?

---

The way I see it, your solution to the broken system is to give up and leave. Mine is to stay and fix what needs fixing. We may disagree on what those things are - I'm sure we do - but I don't support the coward's way out.

Can't fix it when the elections are fixed. There's only one option and we all know it, and no one has the balls.

Translation: "Wah, my guy lost... The other guy had to have cheated!"

---

And even better, for many of the southern states, the Federal Government no longer has them on its back. It always stuck me as funny that a lot of the people in the deep southern states that often scream for secession are screaming over issues that are most prevalent in their own state. Many of those states receive more federal funds then they pay in, quitting the Union would end quite badly for them. Honestly of the states with the bigger secession crowds, only Texas's would have any chance to survive on its own. Although they too often take in more federal funds then they contribute.

Texas has the 2nd highest GDP of all the states and I believe is the 15th largest economy in the world. It doesn't need the Federal Government. It actually was its own Republic before.

A republic which failed miserably...

[Srboslavija]

You're not a citizen of Texas.

No, no, let them think they're citizens of Texas first and foremost. I WANT to see this experiment, where they secede and find out trying to fight the drug cartels is very hard when you have no federal agents or military supplies to equip your reservists, let alone the Mexican Army who will eventually get ordered in when the violence gets to be too great even by their standards and they're ordered to put a stop to it.

Don't Mess With Texas.

[Dyakovo]

No, no, let them think they're citizens of Texas first and foremost. I WANT to see this experiment, where they secede and find out trying to fight the drug cartels is very hard when you have no federal agents or military supplies to equip your reservists, let alone the Mexican Army who will eventually get ordered in when the violence gets to be too great even by their standards and they're ordered to put a stop to it.

Don't Mess With Texas.

Why not?

[Northern Dominus]

Don't Mess With Texas.

Why not?

I thought it was "poke texas with a sharpened stick until it goes away, then laugh as it's consumed by drug cartels and private militias duking it out on the streets and in the bluebonnet fields because they apparently don't know better than the rest of us"

[Dyakovo]

Why not?

I thought it was "poke texas with a sharpened stick until it goes away, then laugh as it's consumed by drug cartels and private militias duking it out on the streets and in the bluebonnet fields because they apparently don't know better than the rest of us"

Pretty much... There's nothing special about Texas... Well, unless you count having been a failed state as being something special...

[Northern Dominus]

I thought it was "poke texas with a sharpened stick until it goes away, then laugh as it's consumed by drug cartels and private militias duking it out on the streets and in the bluebonnet fields because they apparently don't know better than the rest of us"

Pretty much... There's nothing special about Texas... Well, unless you count having been a failed state as being something special...

Well to be fair, on paper they probably could do pretty well as a state. Texas has its own independent power grid and infrastructure, research network, aerospace and other industries so technically it would do alright if it split away.

The issue is if course once they split off and lose access to the might and muscle of the US military and federal agenices like the FBI and ATF, what is exactly stopping the cartels from completely running amok in the southern towns? Last I checked they're better equipped than the local sheriffs most of the time.

[Srboslavija]

I thought it was "poke texas with a sharpened stick until it goes away, then laugh as it's consumed by drug cartels and private militias duking it out on the streets and in the bluebonnet fields because they apparently don't know better than the rest of us"

Pretty much... There's nothing special about Texas... Well, unless you count having been a failed state as being something special...

I've never lived in the US but if I did it would be Texas. That says a lot because my standards are incredibly high.

Austin is right up there amongst the most liveable cities in the world.

[Dyakovo]

Pretty much... There's nothing special about Texas... Well, unless you count having been a failed state as being something special...

Well to be fair, on paper they probably could do pretty well as a state. Texas has its own independent power grid and infrastructure, research network, aerospace and other industries so technically it would do alright if it split away.

The issue is if course once they split off and lose access to the might and muscle of the US military and federal agenices like the FBI and ATF, what is exactly stopping the cartels from completely running amok in the southern towns? Last I checked they're better equipped than the local sheriffs most of the time.

The ignoramuses that support secession probably think that they would be able to keep all the military equipment that's there...

[Sdaeriji]

Pretty much... There's nothing special about Texas... Well, unless you count having been a failed state as being something special...

I've never lived in the US but if I did it would be Texas. That says a lot because my standards are incredibly high.

Austin is right up there amongst the most liveable cities in the world.

And Austin is right up there amongst the localities in Texas that would try to secede back to the United States if Texas ever left the Union.

[Srboslavija]

Well to be fair, on paper they probably could do pretty well as a state. Texas has its own independent power grid and infrastructure, research network, aerospace and other industries so technically it would do alright if it split away.

The issue is if course once they split off and lose access to the might and muscle of the US military and federal agenices like the FBI and ATF, what is exactly stopping the cartels from completely running amok in the southern towns? Last I checked they're better equipped than the local sheriffs most of the time.

The ignoramuses that support secession probably think that they would be able to keep all the military equipment that's there...

"Just try to pry my military equipment from my cold dead hands"