Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Election - Unhappy Voters Ask To Secede From US  
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 621 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477

I mean, I think the only thing that needs to be said is that education funding needs to be increased in these states.

Your thoughts?

104 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I mean, I think the only thing that needs to be said is that education funding needs to be increased in these states.

Indeed....

Quote:
The text complains of "blatant abuses" of Americans' rights. It cites the Transportation Security Administration, whose staff have been accused of intrusive airport screening of flyers.

Are these people forgetting what (or who) started the erosion of their rights in the first place? Living in a bubble doesn't even begin to describe it!


User currently offlinetz757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2868 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Well, I'm not defending this at all, but of all the petitions, the most popular one, Texas, has been a mildly legitimate issue ever since they became a state. I know of many who seek the route of reverting Texas back to an independent Republic.

That said, all of this is rubbish and won't get very far.



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2849 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Your thoughts?

Well......

Look what happened last time.....

The last time states officially seceded, following the election of Abraham Lincoln, the US Civil War followed.

I would have thought, that the US is fighting enough wars at the moment.
  



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Yawn, the same thing happened in 2004 and 2008. Just a tiny percentage of people actually signed these petitions.

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

According to a local TV station here in Dallas, 30,000+ people have signed such a petition.

Of course - 3,294,440 people in Texas voted FOR President Obama and VP Biden.

So 100 to 1 - people in Texas prefer Obama as President over succession.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Yeah, really, 100,000 / 315,000,000 = about 0.03%.

Slow news day I'm guessing. Get the number up to about 20% then I might be scared. There exist fringe people in Europe as well...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting tz757300 (Reply 2):
Well, I'm not defending this at all, but of all the petitions, the most popular one, Texas, has been a mildly legitimate issue ever since they became a state. I know of many who seek the route of reverting Texas back to an independent Republic.

I have the solution: Let them secede. Then invade them for their oil. (You wanted to be your own country? OK, then!) Shoot only combatants.   Annex the "country" back into a state. And that will end all the whining about how Texas was never "legally" blah blah blah.

These separatist movements crack me up. Quebec, Texas, Cataluña... do you think that after seceding from a country that the country will keep letting you have all the benefits of being a state/province/autonomous community? No. You lose all your trade rights, your ability to travel across the border, your highways, your rail links, etc.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting tz757300 (Reply 2):
Texas, has been a mildly legitimate issue ever since they became a state. I know of many who seek the route of reverting Texas back to an independent Republic.

That fiction still exists.

A lot of Texans and most of the thousands of illegals who came to Texas and fought in the Texas Revolution, sought to have Texas admitted to the United States. They specifically opposed Texas becoming an independent nation

In 1845 Texas voted overwhelmingly to join the union. They had a right to create four additional states from Texas territory, but chose not to do so. The voters of Texas in 1845 explicitly voted to forfeit any right to leave the union and re-form a Republic.

Under President Buchanan, Texas joined several other states and 'seceding' from the nation before Lincoln became President.

Part of the state's 'readmission' and permission to elect its own government and representatives in Congress was giving up any 'rights' to become four additional states or secede at any point in the future.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8227 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

The easiest thing to do is to list all of the government workers and government installations that would be shut down.

Start with military bases.

Then list all the government funding that would be cut, like research funding.

Doesn't take long to make the losses clear to the yo-yos.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11594 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
Then list all the government funding that would be cut, like research funding.

And, let's not forget the most recipeants for things like food stamps and unemployment and such, per capita, are in places like Alabama, Mississippi, Texas.... Those "git big gub'mint outta my life!!" states. The ones who want to leave the Union.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

As long as we can build a Big Wall around the border, i'm fine with it.

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13091 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

The real intention of these secession petitions is to protest the Federal Government and support State Rights as to a wide variety of Federal regulations including as to social welfare, environmental, businesses and so on.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

"More than 100,000 Americans have petitioned the White House "

Remind me of what the population of the US is - 311,591,917 in July 2011. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) So approximately 0.03% of the population or about 0.04% of the voter aged population of ± 235,940,406.

Even from Texas, with a population of 25,674,681 in July 2011, was the only petition to reach the threshold of 25,000 signatures at which the White House normally responds.

But aren't these people jumping the gun? Leaving aside US Constitutional provisions and looking at it purely from a State perspective, wouldn't any request to secede have to come about as a result of a majority vote cast in the state legislature? Shouldn't the petitioners first determine that a majority in their State actually want the state to secede rather than making a direct appeal to the White House?

Given the small number of signatories to each petition I am doubtful that they could persuade their fellow citizens. Even in Texas less than one tenth of 1% were sufficiently moved to put pen to paper.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11594 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
The real intention of these secession petitions is to protest the Federal Government and support State Rights as to a wide variety of Federal regulations including as to social welfare, environmental, businesses and so on.

It's odd how these secession petitions only come up in the days following a presidential election, though.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 13):
Remind me of what the population of the US is - 311,591,917 in July 2011. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) So approximately 0.03% of the population or about 0.04% of the voter aged population of ± 235,940,406.

Approximately 1.1% of the US population has schizophrenia according to the NIH., So these secession discussions are just kind of funny at this point.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
It's odd how these secession petitions only come up in the days following a presidential election, though.

We have two full-time secession groups in Texas. It comes up all the time.

We even had folks saying Romney was too liberal and Texas should secede if he was elected.

Texas is home to the world's greatest fruitcakes - the real ones - and the political ones are also world class.


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2786 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2583 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I'm sad to admit my state, North Dakota, is on the list   . Although apparently there was some story months ago that said we weren't properly admitted. Probably more garbage from these succession groups. All these people need to just find a nice island somewhere and start a colony. Two weeks ago they march around saying we are the best country in the world and now want to leave the union. What a joke. They are just letting some people on one side of the aisle say how they get no cooperation. They need to get their act together, stop making republicans look like loons, and work to fix the problems, not create them.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11594 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 17):
Two weeks ago they march around saying we are the best country in the world and now want to leave the union. What a joke.

Exactly. Much as I hate Patriot Act and Bush II, I would rather stay and vote the bums out and get the country I would like to see rather than give up. This is my home. I think Canada and Finland are great, but U.S.A. is my home.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7477 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2585 times:

If this stuff wasn't from those ultra religious rednecks, I'd be more apt to agree with them.


here's the thing: our nation is severely divided and it's not gonna get any better. I'm actually surprised this election wasn't violent.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2584 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19):
here's the thing: our nation is severely divided and it's not gonna get any better.

It's good that the nation has largely accepted this as a fact to consider but it seems no one has yet found the next logical step: how and why? Everything that happens, happens for a reason. I'm not yet ready to assign that much blame, but I think our leaders, both of politics and opinion, have started leaning too hard on the easy ways, the cheap tricks and spiteful loopholes to either get their way, or just prevent the people they disagree with from getting theirs. We revere the Constitution, as well we should, but refuse to consider any further refinement on the system it created; as such, it's too easy to turn ideas written two hundred years ago to some unintended and unrelated advantage. Structures of government should last, but they shouldn't be Procrustean.


User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 705 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2584 times:

these groups are nothing new and exist in many states and have for many years. Groups in Northern California wanting to split from Southern CA and vice versa, Hawaii having its own groups, nothing new, and just really brought to the forefront due to the recent election results.

Does not mean that XX amount of states want to secede from the Union. Nothing new to see here folks!


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Yeah, really, 100,000 / 315,000,000 = about 0.03%.

I know, I mean could find 500,000 people that would sign a petition to end women's suffrage.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19):
here's the thing: our nation is severely divided and it's not gonna get any better.

We've been worse; far worse, and never saw anything come of it.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19):
I'm actually surprised this election wasn't violent.

I would have been surprised if it had been. Seriously, there's a lot of blustering going on, but it's all talk and no substance.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 19):
here's the thing: our nation is severely divided and it's not gonna get any better. I'm actually surprised this election wasn't violent.

I disagree that we are a nation severely divided.

We are a nation where the media airways are saturated with extremist views, and any media coverage which is actually fair and balanced or seeks to unite people is condemned as 'leftist mainstream media'.

Complaints about 'mainstream media' are simply folks not wanting to realize their views are not the views of the majority of Americans.

But we have a lot of people, which is still a very small minority, that see people of different colors, poor people, i.e anyone 'different' getting decent jobs as a 'threat' and want to make sure it does not happen.

I strongly believe the reason Romney lost this election was his taxes. Working people in this nation simply cannot identify/ agree with a man who pays only 14% in taxes while they pay 22-26%, and he says he needs lower tax rates while they need to pay more.

In my opinion, most people in this nation want the same thing - fair government, fair taxes, a safety net to protect the unfortunates, a fair opportunity for jobs and to get ahead. They are fed up with the media and the politicians who pander to the media.

There is massive apathy about the entire political process. That is it too messed up to be fixed. That anyone on TV talking about fixing things is lying and simply out to find a way to get more for themselves and deprive others. That the system is broken and the best that can be hoped for is that the people in Washington won't mess up things too badly.

Such apathy, dissatisfaction and lack of passion by the vast majority of the people/ voters in the US isn't really a bad thing. If people were actually passionate about issues, and focused on getting their issues resolved through government - the US would have a fractured multi-party system with changes of government power several times a year. That would create an even greater lack of positive action out of DC than we already have.

For a republic to work on the level of the size of nation we have, most of the people must be willing to accept compromise. To accept that 40-60% of the time, they will not get the things they want passed by the government system. They just hope the really important one or two issues get resolved.

People who demand more are a small minority - and really don't want a republic or a democracy.


Re Violence.

August 9, 1974 was about the single day I was proudest of my nation during my life.

At the time I was stationed in the Philippines, and was participating in a conference with representatives from Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand.

They simply could not believe that the President of the United States could be forced out of office - and there was no violence. No riots in the street, no shootings, etc.

We've had violence in the streets in this country during my lifetime. We've had the National Guard firing on citizens protesting XXXXX. We've had mobs burning down anything they could in rage.

People in the US today are smarter than they were in the 60s.


User currently offlinehelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):

An excellent post. Glad someone gets it.

Welcome to my RU list.


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Finally someone gets it. The media is mostly to blame for the belief that there is a large divide in this country. They give credence to extremist grounds such as the Tea Party and Occupy sects, that shift focus from real issues to issues that shouldn't even be up for debate in the twenty-first century, ie. gay marriage, and women's rights. These groups are nothing more than a loud minority that has drowned out the moderate common-sense voices that comprise the majority of America.

One of the reasons that I have become a Recovering Republican is that the GOP refuses to run someone who's views only appeal to a small percentage of the population. The GOP needs to realize that white males are now a minority in this country, and to only work to appeal to them is going continue to hurt them in the future. Once the GOP can figure out how to tackle social issues without resorting to religious extremism I might think about voting Republican again.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2512 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
These separatist movements crack me up. Quebec, Texas, Cataluña... do you think that after seceding from a country that the country will keep letting you have all the benefits of being a state/province/autonomous community? No. You lose all your trade rights, your ability to travel across the border, your highways, your rail links, etc.

Bingo! Let's put this in a.nut terms. You want to fly AA LIT/DFW/PHX? Well, better have your passport in order when you check in at LIT and be ready to go through customs and immigration when you get to PHX. You want to take that non-stop SEA/MDW on WN? Sorry, only US flag carriers can fly US domestic routes and since WN has their HQ in Dallas, that makes them a flag carrier of the Republic of Texas.
Let's go into trade - ABC Co wants to send their weekly shipment of widgets to Acme Inc in Memphis - well, now it can't go to Acme - has to go to a bonded warehouse in MEM so that Acme can have their customs broker work on getting it cleared first. How long do you think it will be before Acme Inc decides it's much less hassle to buy their widgets from XYZ Co in Chicago? How long before all ABC's interstate customers fee the same way? And let's not even start thinking about all the long-haul trucks that pass through Texas on east/west routes that now won't want to have to go through international border crossings at both ends, thus depriving Texas of highway taxes, money spent on diesel fuel, food and lodging etc.
This is just a very small sample - people who come up with these hare-brained ideas never think about the real world consequences of what they propose.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2704 times:

I still want to see Alaska have her independence, it is not because of the election. There a long history that predates O'bummers birth in Narobi Kenya.

Frankly he Is the one that sucks, o why should I leave the us on the account of him?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31):
There a long history that predates O'bummers birth in Narobi Kenya.

Alaska has it's fair share of nuts and legumes.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 31):
still want to see Alaska have her independence,

Alaska over the US of A aye?

I guess binged out conservatives don't have a monopoly on patriotism when their Republican candidate looses to the opponent well Obama anyway, they opt to concede from the union instead. Just like the Confederacy and for the same reasons.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 32):
Alaska has it's fair share of nuts and legumes.

You betcha!



PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Quoting dlramp4life (Reply 33):
Quoting 2707200X (Reply 32):
Alaska has it's fair share of nuts and legumes.

You betcha!

   This made my night

Weren't these the same "patriots" that thought the country was going to go to the crapper if Obama was re-elected? Well if they leave then both the US and their respective country (Texas, Alaska, etc) will go right down the crapper for sure.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 30):

Weren't these the same "patriots" that thought the country was going to go to the crapper if Obama was re-elected?

It is going down the crapper, and obummer was re-elected

Everybody forgets too, i am not registered as a republican, but AIP



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 4):
Yawn, the same thing happened in 2004

Exactly.

Proposed map after John Kerry lost to Dubya.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2683 times:

http://undeniableme.wordpress.com/20.../19/so-youre-thinking-of-seceding/

Quote:
If you are one of the riled-up citizens of the few States wishing to secede from the Nation, there are a few things you should know about the act of secession before pursuing your wild and zany goals:
Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 30):
  This made my night

You know that Mrs. Palin is from Idaho, yes? They don't talk that way in Alaska.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2679 times:

Interesting list Doc but not a single item on it hasn't been overcome by every other country in the world.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 32):
Proposed map after John Kerry lost to Dubya.

Equally silly, ALTHOUGH it probably would have worked out better had the USC (United States of Canada) actually formed than, say, North Carolina or Texas seceding.

First of all, it would have been the absorption of states into an existing government. Second, all the states (except Hawaii) would have been geographically contiguous.

But that assumes that the secession were orderly and amicable with trade agreements already in place. That's not really realistic.


Quoting L-188 (Reply 34):

Interesting list Doc but not a single item on it hasn't been overcome by every other country in the world.

The last secession event I can think about was in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of these issues aren't even issues. The only other example would be the breakup of Yugoslavia, and I can tell you that, having visited those states, it was messy. But they at least had Europe nearby. Texas would have Mexico nearby.

Now, tell me, let's assume for a moment that Texas did split off (I'm just using Texas because they've been the loudest of the bunch). Do you think this would occur with favorable trade relations in place with the USA? I doubt it. In fact, I think Texas would have to win a civil war. But let's assume they did, I'm pretty sure the other 49 would be pretty sore about it. Even if we didn't immediately re-invade (or carpet nuke), we'd probably treat Texas pretty much like we treat Iran now. You do business with Texas? We don't do business with you.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Equally silly, ALTHOUGH it probably would have worked out better had the USC (United States of Canada) actually formed than, say, North Carolina or Texas seceding.

First of all, it would have been the absorption of states into an existing government. Second, all the states (except Hawaii) would have been geographically contiguous.

But that assumes that the secession were orderly and amicable with trade agreements already in place. That's not really realistic.

Canada doesn't want to take on all the debt that those states have racked up. Plus Canada understands the importance of drilling for oil which wouldn't sit well with all of those 'experts' in Hollywood and New York City.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
You know that Mrs. Palin is from Idaho, yes?

And wasn't the founder of the Alaska Independance Party born in Kansas?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
The only other example would be the breakup of Yugoslavia,

Secession under amicable terms is possible if you have sensible people. The Czech and Slovak Republics separated on amicable terms in what was dubbed the velvet divorce.

Peaceful negotiations resulted in a split of national assets. Neither party sought successor status but both agreed to honour and abide by treaties signed by the former Czechoslovakia. Both admitted to the UN. No bloodshed.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 37):
And wasn't the founder of the Alaska Independance Party born in Kansas?

There is no zealot like a convert...


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
The only other example would be the breakup of Yugoslavia

The split of Czechoslovakia worked without much problems. But I'm sure the people suggesting secession have little idea what it means in practice.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
You lose all your trade rights, your ability to travel across the border, your highways, your rail links, etc.

Really the roads and railways will still be there, kinda hard to rip them up, people will still be able to travel across the border, it wouldn't be any different than Canadians crossing to the US, so I don't get your point? Fairly certain that if Texas succeeded they would join NAFTA, and you would still want what they have and that's the oil.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 40):
Fairly certain that if Texas succeeded they would join NAFTA, and you would still want what they have and that's the oil.

Both Texas secession movements firmly reject NAFTA. They would embargo shipment of parts, food and finished goods from Mexico to the US through Texas.

That would shutdown several night cargo operations which fly auto parts out of Del Rio and other border cities to auto plants around the US. Actually it would move those operations to airports in Mexico and newly setup customs airports in Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Texas does have a pretty fair source of oil. But not irreplaceable. They also depend heavily upon a pipeline infrastructure which run through Oklahoma.

What Texas does have the loss of which would really hurt the US is oil refineries.

The really big issue would be water.

There is a very complicated agreement between the US and Mexico about water from the Rio Grande River. The United States could allow New Mexico to use as much Rio Grande River water as they want, and allow Mexico to pump out even more - with a huge negative impact upon the extensive agriculture industry in the lower valley.

There would also be issues with the Red River water. Oklahoma is currently not happy about Texas cities trying to pump Red River water into the DFW area.

As far as border crossings. The one I'd want to see is a city near where I grew up - Texarkana where the border runs down the main street in the city.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Doc, would thnk if done right that it would be peaceful, like the breakup of Chechcolvakia or the current process Scotland is working through.

I would hope in the case of the later we would get it done a wee bit faster



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 42):
Doc, would thnk if done right that it would be peaceful, like the breakup of Chechcolvakia or the current process Scotland is working through.

I would hope in the case of the later we would get it done a wee bit faster

I think it could be done peacfully, however there would be a vast many problems, especially in places where the US government would have to interact with these new sovergn governments, ie military installations, the deintegration of the National Guard out of the regular US miltiary system. Who retains ownership of the equipment, planes, nuclear weapons.

Would these states that have nuclear weapons stored there be willing to return them to the US Government, and in the time between seceesion and agreement, could the security of these weapons be maintained. Would these populations stand by and allow a foreign government to continue to have military presence in their new country?



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22):
I know, I mean could find 500,000 people that would sign a petition to end women's suffrage.

Well yeah! I mean, what sickos want women to suffer?













 



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 43):
Who retains ownership of the equipment, planes, nuclear weapons.

The United States would retain possession of all those assets.

Among the first things to occur would be closing the military bases and movement of the various equipment and personnel out of the state planning to secede.

Texas does have a problem with the Pantex plant, which would have to have an agreement to allow continued operation until a replacement could be built.

A bigger issue might be US strategic oil reserves and the National Helium Reserve.

Also what about the Air Force Plant in Fort Worth that Lockheed uses to produce the F-16 and F-35. That would surely be moved quickly. Along with the Bell/Textron helicopter and V-22 production in the DFW area and Amarillo.

I'm not even going to guess at the number of jobs the closing of Lackland, Fort Sam Houston (now knows as Joint Base San Antonio), Laughlin AFB, Goodfellow AFB, Randolph AFB, Dyess AFB, NAS Corpus, NAS Kingsville, NAS/JRB Fort Worth, Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, the Lone Star Army Depot, the Red River Army Depot and those plants would create.

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 43):
allow a foreign government to continue to have military presence in their new country?

We, the United States, expect foreign governments to allow our military to have presence on their soil all the time. We also allow extensive foreign millitary presence in the US.

The German Air Force maintains a training unit in New Mexico. The Singapore Air Force maintains a training unit in Idaho, etc.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 45):
The United States would retain possession of all those assets.

Among the first things to occur would be closing the military bases and movement of the various equipment and personnel out of the state planning to secede.

Texas does have a problem with the Pantex plant, which would have to have an agreement to allow continued operation until a replacement could be built.

A bigger issue might be US strategic oil reserves and the National Helium Reserve.

Of course, Texas could always BUY those things off the United States to secure their independence.

Then they'd be Haiti.

Condensed version: Haiti bought their independence from France by paying France what it would have made from Haiti's incredible riches and natural resources. At the time, Haitians thought that paying money was worth their independence. But that debt saddled them for over 100 years, and was still being paid to France until the debt was finally forgiven after the recent devastating earthquake. Once the richest country in the western hemisphere, Haiti is now, well, Haiti.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8839 posts, RR: 24
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Now, tell me, let's assume for a moment that Texas did split off (I'm just using Texas because they've been the loudest of the bunch). Do you think this would occur with favorable trade relations in place with the USA? I doubt it. In fact, I think Texas would have to win a civil war. But let's assume they did, I'm pretty sure the other 49 would be pretty sore about it.

There is a little problem in that such retribution would run contrary to some of the founding concepts of both the US and Texas:

From the Declaration of Independance:

Quote:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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...

From the Texas Constitution:

Quote:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

How can any nation faced with a portion of the country that wants to go their own way, justify forcing them to stay? Didn't we bomb Serbia for just that reason?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
Even if we didn't immediately re-invade (or carpet nuke), we'd probably treat Texas pretty much like we treat Iran now. You do business with Texas? We don't do business with you.

Why would you do that? Just out of bitterness?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 45):
The United States would retain possession of all those assets.

Not normally.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 45):
I'm not even going to guess at the number of jobs the closing of Lackland, Fort Sam Houston (now knows as Joint Base San Antonio), Laughlin AFB, Goodfellow AFB, Randolph AFB, Dyess AFB, NAS Corpus, NAS Kingsville, NAS/JRB Fort Worth, Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, the Lone Star Army Depot, the Red River Army Depot and those plants would create.

Texas would need its own military, so it won't be a total loss.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 42):
like the breakup of Chechcolvakia

Even google doesn't know where Chechcolvakia is.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 42):
the current process Scotland is working through.

Probably an equal chance of Texas independence as Scottish independence.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6581 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
There is a little problem in that such retribution would run contrary to some of the founding concepts of both the US and Texas:



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
There is a little problem in that such retribution would run contrary to some of the founding concepts of both the US and Texas

We've had this discussion. In 1861. It's hardly reasonable to have a "united states" when any state can just decide to leave when it feels expedient and the federal government it responds to isn't allowed to have a say.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8839 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 50):
We've had this discussion. In 1861.

And the decision then was wrong - according to the rights of self-determination that we chose to defend in, say, Croatia.

I'm not saying secession should be easy, and not by a simply plurality. But if you get 2/3 or 3/4 of the population of a region saying they want to strike out on their own, there is no moral rationale for you to prevent it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 45):

We, the United States, expect foreign governments to allow our military to have presence on their soil all the time. We also allow extensive foreign millitary presence in the US.

The difference is that these countries invited the U in or to stay. Where as these new "nations" just told the US that they don't want them any more.

I understand cooler heads would prevail in government but the general population might not be so friendly and see these bases as a threat to their sovereignty. Now I do realize that this is a worst case scenario, but its worth thinking about.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2512 posts, RR: 7
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 49):

That pretty much sums up the mentality of those making these silly proposals  


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

It's great that we can discuss theoretical situations, but here's the reality of the situation:

Less than 1% of the population of any state has signed a petition advocating for secession. A petition that is signed via the internet.

I can find a million people (10x the amount that has signed the petition) that will sign an actual piece of paper that would end women's suffrage.


In short, this whole "secession" talk is nothing more than typical media-fueled sensationalism.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):

And the decision then was wrong - according to the rights of self-determination that we chose to defend in, say, Croatia.

Self determination is the right to have the government of your choosing. Croatia as such conforms with that. The secession of the South in 1861 does not- they themselves helped create the process which led to the pre-Civil War government and had taken part in it legitimately since, but decided to leave because the results were no longer acceptable to them.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):
In short, this whole "secession" talk is nothing more than typical media-fueled sensationalism.

  

It is fun to talk about, especially in a lag in news, but these groups have been around forever. Maybe they'll "spike" up a bit when we elect a "socialist" but even the spikes are very, very few people compared to the US (and even the state.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 56):


It is fun to talk about, especially in a lag in news, but these groups have been around forever. Maybe they'll "spike" up a bit when we elect a "socialist" but even the spikes are very, very few people compared to the US (and even the state.)

Exactly. If there were actually legitimate issues to divide the union over we would see this talk outside of election aftermath periods. As it happens it's just the most mentally satisfying way to deal with a defeat for some people, like the kid losing the game saying he's going to pick up his ball and go home.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
How can any nation faced with a portion of the country that wants to go their own way, justify forcing them to stay?

Just like in 1861, a small portion of the people in the state wanted to leave the Union. A great number wanted to stay. Today the percentage wanting to stay would be even higher.

So maybe Texas could leave the United States, but the DFW Metroplex, the Houston area and the Austin/San Antonio area would stay part of the US - because a vote on secession would fail there.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Not normally.

All of those assets were paid for with US federal government money. The State of Texas did not pay for them.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Texas would need its own military, so it won't be a total loss.

Texas is a net consumer state. It receives more money from the federal government than Texas taxpayers and companies sent to Washington.

Except for one instance to support his Presidential campaign, the governor, state officials and legislature seek every federal dollar they can. So that they can promote that Texas has a balanced budget.

It doesn't.

It is the worst kind of accounting fiction.

If Texas was able to secede, it would need a military - but no way the people supporting secession would be willing to pay the taxes to build a military from near scratch.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8227 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 34):

Interesting list Doc but not a single item on it hasn't been overcome by every other country in the world.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
Canada doesn't want to take on all the debt that those states have racked up. Plus Canada understands the importance of drilling for oil which wouldn't sit well with all of those 'experts' in Hollywood and New York City.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 37):
Secession under amicable terms is possible if you have sensible people.

That may be the case, but if, say, Texas was to succeed then there are some important issues to be addressed.

First corporations need to decide if they are going to be a US company or a Texas company. So both Southwest and American Airlines need to make that decision. Of course AA does have the US Federal issue of Bankruptcy going on right now, making their decision more clouded. In addition to companies making their decisions there is also the need for their employees to make decisions. Do they want to be an American or strictly a Texan.

Texas has some outstanding medical facilities, and these facilities depend on federal funding. Take a look at M D Anderson with about 1,000 research programs active at any one time. Cut the federal funding related to those programs and a lot of first rate medical personnel working at MDA will be packing their bags, going to where the money is. Internationally known medical centers (like the one in Houston) would obviously shrink significantly.

Same with funding at various universities in Texas that has enjoyed federal funding for generations.

Federal funding of state based military organizations also loose their funding. Toss in some taxes or close them down. Not that big a deal.

The wild thing about Texas is that the taxpayers will not be willing to pay for a secure border with Mexico, opening more doors to Hispanics than ever before. Might as well build more bridges to make it easier for the migrants. And don't worry too much about laws related to immigration - the drug cartels will be addressing the local and state law agencies on a one by one basis.

Maybe those not happy with where they are living now should just move somewhere where they can be happy.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Quoting tz757300 (Reply 2):
That said, all of this is rubbish and won't get very far.

Yeah, but it's rather entertaining  

We petition the Obama administration to:
Peacefully grant the city of Austin Texas to withdraw from the state of Texas & remain part of the United States.

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/peti...remain-part-united-states/TDD212hQ

I'd like to see Texas secede, and 10 years later due to changing demographics their country elects another Liberal.

[Edited 2012-11-14 14:56:21]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8839 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 55):
Self determination is the right to have the government of your choosing. Croatia as such conforms with that. The secession of the South in 1861 does not- they themselves helped create the process which led to the pre-Civil War government and had taken part in it legitimately since, but decided to leave because the results were no longer acceptable to them.

What's the difference? In 1990, Yugoslavia had an election, Croatia decided it didn't like the result and gave their notice. Yugoslav Federal forces then attacked. What's the difference?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
Just like in 1861, a small portion of the people in the state wanted to leave the Union. A great number wanted to stay. Today the percentage wanting to stay would be even higher.

Do you have a source (for 1861, I mean)?

As for right now, yes, I'm sure it's a minority. We are theorizing what would happen if it was a large majority.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
All of those assets were paid for with US federal government money. The State of Texas did not pay for them.

And has been done many times before, Anything the US government leaves behind as of a certain date will belong to the State of Texas.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
Texas is a net consumer state. It receives more money from the federal government than Texas taxpayers and companies sent to Washington.

Except for one instance to support his Presidential campaign, the governor, state officials and legislature seek every federal dollar they can. So that they can promote that Texas has a balanced budget.

It doesn't.

It is the worst kind of accounting fiction.

I can't find more recent data, but in 2004, the federal government spent $94 for every $100 of taxes paid by Texas. In 2007 it was down to $76 per $100 (although that does not count interest on federal debt, which if allocated would be about $21 in 2007, making a total of $97 per $100 in taxes).

Are you sure you aren't creating (or reading) fiction? Looks like Texas is a net contributor to me.

As for the the Red States being generally less contributors than Blue States, that is true - mainly for historical reasons. Delaware, New York, Illinois and California are traditionally the home base for many large conglomerates and banking firms, and and a disproportionate level of economic activity from other states and internationally are taxed in those states. That's why Delaware's per capita tax revenue is more than double (at $19.5K) that of more 'normal' states, like Colorado ($9.3K)

If it wasn't for the high cost of packing up and moving holding companies and related entities, and if corporations could easily move where they liked, I think you would find that most of them would not stay where they are today.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

What's the difference? In 1990, Yugoslavia had an election, Croatia decided it didn't like the result and gave their notice. Yugoslav Federal forces then attacked. What's the difference?

The difference is that until the South seceded, everything had been playing by the rules which they had created and assented to just fine legally. Whereas in Yugoslavia it was a whole bunch of diverging ethnic interests living under one "roof" and there would be a reasonable case that not everyone would be correctly represented, and indeed I'm pretty sure that self-determination hadn't yet been given a chance to happen given the rule by Tito beforehand.

Also that the South shot first (though it was a careful calculation by Lincoln to make sure that they did.)


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8839 posts, RR: 24
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 62):
The difference is that until the South seceded, everything had been playing by the rules which they had created and assented to just fine legally. Whereas in Yugoslavia it was a whole bunch of diverging ethnic interests living under one "roof" and there would be a reasonable case that not everyone would be correctly represented, and indeed I'm pretty sure that self-determination hadn't yet been given a chance to happen given the rule by Tito beforehand.

I think you are searching. It comes down to this - If a substantial majority of a population (call it 2/3rds or 3/4ths) want to secede, there is no moral rationale to refuse them. Their reasons might be ethnic, economic or anything else - it does not matter.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Texas secedes and just like that a good chunk of the United States' illegal immigration problem ceases to exist!!!! American, Southwest and United would probably have to find new hub airports though  

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Are you sure you aren't creating (or reading) fiction? Looks like Texas is a net contributor to me.

Gov Perry and several politicans have been on the news this week - explicitly stating that Texas is no longer a sending state, but has been a receiving state for four or five years.

One factor is the increased spending on the defense industry in Texas, especially the F-16 and F-35 programs. Also Texas has seen a large increase since 2005 in the number of US military personnel stationed in the state.

Another is that while Texas politicians want to talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created in Texas in the past four years - the reality is that those jobs have largely replace jobs lost.

The state lost a few hundred thousand IT, financial services and manufacturing jobs - averaging $70-75,000 per year. They have been replaced by service industry and retail jobs averaging $30,000 per year.

The total amount of federal income tax paid by Texans is being reported in the media as decreasing every year for the past five years.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Well the forum chopped up my reply

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Do you have a source (for 1861, I mean)?

Texas. ADMITTED INTO THE UNION, 1845.
POPULATION IN 1860, 415,999 WHITES.
POPULATION IN 1860, 184,966 SLAVES.
NUMBER OF SQUARE MILES, 274,356.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/blackwell/ill41.html

I'm going to assume that the slaves were opposed to secession. Slavery was actually against Mexican Law before Texas became a republic. I'm also assuming the large Mexican and Indian populations were not actively for secession. Now if you want to go with the thinking of the time that these were not real people - then my supposition that the majority were not advocates of secession might be incorrect.

In the Hill Country of Texas was a very large majority of German, Czech and other immigrants from that part of Europe. Towns like Fredricksburg are a legacy of that wave of immigration. They were almost universally opposed to leaving the United States. The northern counties along the Red River were populated with a lot of people from states like Missouri, Kentucky and such - states which refused to secede. Those counties also expressed that sentiment.

Approx 11% of the whites in the state did vote for secession in a statewide referendum.

Quote:
The results for the state as a whole were 46,153 for and 14,747 against. Of the 122 counties casting votes only eighteen cast majorities against secession. Only eleven others cast as much as 40 percent of their vote against. Not surprisingly, almost all of these twenty-nine counties were located in the two areas where the campaign had been the most open and the Unionist leadership had high status and good organization.

Among those who voted - 75% voted for secession and 25% voted against.

It is my thesis that the advocates for secession were a strong percentage of white males in Texas in 1861, but not a majority of the people in Texas.

Here is a very good article on the subject of Texas secession -
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

CBS 11 in Fort Worth 10pm local news aired a story of the cost of secession. One item they cited is that according to the Texas government - Texas received a net $65 billion more in federal money than the state paid in federal taxes last year (2011).

If they put the story on their website before I head out of town tomorrow - I'll post the link.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 60):
We petition the Obama administration to:
Peacefully grant the city of Austin Texas to withdraw from the state of Texas & remain part of the United States.

Who do I petition to build a bridge from Austin to the nearest border outside the Republic Of Texas?

I vote we let Alabama secede and build a wall around it and shoot these dirty, lazy illegal immigrants on sight whenever they try to climb over it.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 20):
We revere the Constitution

No we don't. We pretend to, when it suits our purpose, but we have no problem twisting its words, meanings and intents when convenient. Case in point, the right to bear arms.

Quoting D L X (Reply 44):
Well yeah! I mean, what sickos want women to suffer?

That is how they tried to get me to sign.... In Texas, of all places.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

As they say Go there's nothing stopping you! Best of luck to you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. If this happened,
1. I'd make our company WN and even AA and any other major airline in a state that left the Union a deal they couldn't refuse.
2. Develop intelligence like Israel has so these new rogue nations don't become the next Mid-East Third World bizzars that want to smote our great nation.
3. If say Louisana left the US and they got a Katrina style hurricane I bet they'd be the first to come a knockin on the door of their former nation. Of course the USA would help them in such times of disaster.
4. And, as a nicety we will give you Mayor Nanny Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, Honey Boo Boo, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbau.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2673 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 52):
The difference is that these countries invited the U in or to stay. Where as these new "nations" just told the US that they don't want them any more.

So by your reasoning the State of Hawaii would be able to suceed because it was forcefully intergrated into the USA, against the wishes of it's native population and ruling family.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 68):
I vote we let Alabama secede and build a wall around it and shoot these dirty, lazy illegal immigrants on sight whenever they try to climb over it.


Why can't we do that now with our existing border with Mexico?

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 69):
3. If say Louisana left the US and they got a Katrina style hurricane I bet they'd be the first to come a knockin on the door of their former nation. Of course the USA would help them in such times of disaster.



So are you implying that we shouldn't help those hurt by natural disasters in Haiti and other nations?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
Why can't we do that now with our existing border with Mexico?

The US needs those people to mow your lawns, clean your house and vaccum your pool, if you shot them all who would do all the jobs that are now beneith the average American?


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11594 posts, RR: 15
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 67):
Texas received a net $65 billion more in federal money than the state paid in federal taxes last year (2011).

Right. But, looking at any random state, not just Texas, one has to consider there will be no more federal money for TSA, airports, bridges, roads, food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, if there are federal military bases, those are closed, unless some sort of arrangement is made. National parks/monuments/forests lose funding....

It sounds like a bunch of sour grapes because, as much as people say they love America and the Constitution, their hatred for the Democrat in the White House is much grater. They want unity only if they get their way. Not very American, if you ask me.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8839 posts, RR: 24
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 72):
The US needs those people to mow your lawns, clean your house and vaccum your pool, if you shot them all who would do all the jobs that are now beneith the average American?

And if nobody shows up to do it $5 per hour, you will have to offer $10, $15, $20, $30 per hour, if you really want them done. The market will find a price point where americans themselves will be willing to do the work. Dems should be happy about it - illegal immigration is one of the big reasons why people at the bottom can't get a decent wage.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
Right. But, looking at any random state, not just Texas, one has to consider there will be no more federal money for TSA, airports, bridges, roads, food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, if there are federal military bases, those are closed, unless some sort of arrangement is made. National parks/monuments/forests lose funding...

Don't worry about them - they can handle it. Some 200 countries in the world (many of which weren't even around 25 years ago) have done the same. As for national parks and properties, Texas actually has very little federal land - Part of the annexation agreement with the US stipulated that Texas would be able to keep all unclaimed lands, unlike other states where the Federal Government took it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
It sounds like a bunch of sour grapes because, as much as people say they love America and the Constitution

You don't know many Texans do you? They are Texan first, then American, in that order. I have no trouble believing that they have the will and determination to do it, apart from certain communities in Dallas, University populations in Austin and elsewhere which won't like it - but I don't consider Dallas to be really Texan anyway.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8227 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
What's the difference? In 1990, Yugoslavia had an election, Croatia decided it didn't like the result and gave their notice. Yugoslav Federal forces then attacked. What's the difference?

Not a chance that the US would invade "Texas". Unfortunately our military has been worn out by wars stared by a couple of Texans in the White house. Turns out those wars were totally unnecessary, but we know that - don't we?

BTW, would these new Texans pick up the costs of VA Heath Programs, or will the vets have to move to the US for care?

I guess they will have to move because I really can't see those Texans being willing to pay taxes for any type of public health care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):
You don't know many Texans do you? They are Texan first, then American, in that order.

Texas is one of those queer states that actually believe in putting the state above the Nation. I guess they are not Real Americans. Except, of course those people who have moved (or been transferred) there.

I've been thinking about this today and realize that, like national corporations, professional sports will ned to look for new locations.

The Cowboys could go to Oklahoma city - making it easier for their fans to sneak over the border to watch a game now and then. Houston could move to LA - they need a football team.

College sports, especially football, will probably disappear over time because of the hassles in going overseas for the games. I guess all Texas schools can pay themselves, but after a while it will be like kissing your sister. But, hey, that might work in Texas . . .


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 72):
The US needs those people to mow your lawns, clean your house and vaccum your pool, if you shot them all who would do all the jobs that are now beneith the average American?



Prison laborers should be doing those jobs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):
And if nobody shows up to do it $5 per hour, you will have to offer $10, $15, $20, $30 per hour, if you really want them done. The market will find a price point where americans themselves will be willing to do the work.


  
...and the only people hiring laborers to clean their house and pools are wealthy elitist.
I guarantee you that Barbara Streisand, Raham, Emannuel, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen or Samuel L. Jackson's domestic help are legal citizens.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):
illegal immigration is one of the big reasons why people at the bottom can't get a decent wage.


  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11594 posts, RR: 15
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):
You don't know many Texans do you?

Unfortunatly, I do. They think they are the whole glue that holds the Republic together. They are the only ones who are right and who's ideas are the only ones to consider and everyone else can get stuffed.

Having grown up in Oregon and now live in California, I understand there are 49 other states here and it is not just about Texas. I say we kick them out on principle. We don't need them holding the other 49 states hostage anymore. For the good of the Republic!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 76):
Prison laborers should be doing those jobs.

You want to have a criminal working around your house?


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 78):
You want to have a criminal working around your house?



Sure. We've already got one in the White House....
Many of the illegals doing yard work are already criminals.
If they're in the country illegally, they're already a criminal.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12505 posts, RR: 46
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 79):
We've already got one in the White House....

Only for another four years. Then another one will get in!   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2849 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 79):
Many of the illegals doing yard work are already criminals.
If they're in the country illegally, they're already a criminal.

Just out of interest Superfly.......

Can/are there any criminal charges laid against the people who engage these workers to do "yard work" ?

Seem to me, that the people who employ these "illegals" should face some sort of punishment as well don't you think ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 80):
Only for another four years. Then another one will get in!

Sad but true.
We had a criminal for 8 years prior to the existing one.
Regardless, your Prime Minister will do what ever our President tells him/her to do.   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Why would you do that? Just out of bitterness?

Self-interest, actually. Texas has oil.  

We've invaded other countries for that.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12505 posts, RR: 46
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 82):
Regardless, your Prime Minister will do what ever our President tells him/her to do.

Sadly, it's part of the job description. Has been ever since the US saved us from all speaking German.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
So are you implying that we shouldn't help those hurt by natural disasters in Haiti and other nations?



Not at all. We are the USA and usually we rise to the occasion or in this case disaster but, say if there was one bad ass hurricane; "2017-Hurricane Precious was officially the worst ever hurricane. Hurricane Precious made landfall as a category 5 at Miami Beach, then Pensacola, then steered into the Gulf and made a direct hit on New Orleans. FEMA was stretched to the limit with recovery in the two Florida cities which are still part of the United States of America. The United States feels for those tragically hit in Louisiana and will do anything possible to aid them however since they are now the new nation of
"Frankincense" our duty and priority is with our citizens of the United States of America."
This was just a fictitious example of what could happen. Hopefully this will never happen!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 72):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 82):
Sad but true.
We had a criminal for 8 years prior to the existing one.


I'd say more the village idiot with borderline mental ability. That so called Vice President was the criminal, sociopath.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 84):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 82):
Regardless, your Prime Minister will do what ever our President tells him/her to do.

Sadly, it's part of the job description. Has been ever since the US saved us from all speaking German.   

To follow the sarcasm pin to the bubble of nonsense, with the fact pin.

On trade disputes between the EU and US, guess what side the UK takes?

Harold Wilson, despite intense US pressure, kept British troops out of Vietnam.

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict, Kissinger and Nixon, in an argument with Prime Minister Edward Heath, briefly cut off intel cooperation with the UK. Heath retaliated by banning USAF SR-71 Blackbird operations out of the UK. Vital for monitoring the situation in the Mid East Nixon and Kissinger soon relented. (Having the NSA reminding them that many of their stations were on UK soil in various parts of the world probably helped too).

Despite a genuine closeness between Thatcher and Reagan, they had some fractious disputes in their time.

Clinton and Blair clashed over Kosovo, with Blair coming out on top, again they still maintained a close and friendly relationship.

Blair went into Iraq with Bush because he wanted to, he'd wanted Saddam toppled during the 1998 UN inspector crisis.
Though Blair lost the support of much of his party and country in 2003, he must of been a true believer to do that.

Cameron gets on fine with Obama and his congratulations on his reelection reflected that.
Relief too, after Romney's disastrous visit to London back in July where Mitt became an object of scorn and ridicule over here along with Cameron's rather stinging put down of him, fuelled by genuine anger.
Cameron is a Conservative, so too is London Mayor Boris Johnson who was also dismissive about Mitt.

[Edited 2012-11-17 02:20:30]

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 83):
Self-interest, actually. Texas has oil.

We've invaded other countries for that.

People forget that the driving factor in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941 was oil.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 86):
Cameron gets on fine with Obama and his congratulations on his reelection reflected that.


All British Prime Ministers do that - just as Tony Blair congratulated George W Bush for his win in 2004. Nothing new here. Our Presidents and your Prime Ministers have to get along regardless of ideology. The last time the U.K. was actively involved in internal US matters was when your government supported the Confederacy/slavery during our Civil War almost 100 years after our Independence.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 71):
So are you implying that we shouldn't help those hurt by natural disasters in Haiti and other nations?

There is a difference between helping recovery from a natural disaster, and spending tens of billions of dollars over several years rebuilding state level infrastructure.

Just one example. After Katrina - the Interstate heading east out of New Orleans and the bridge over Lake Ponchatrain heading north were damaged with large sections lifted by the water action and thrown off the piers.

The US would certainly help a nation with immediate aid - but the US would not pay to rebuild those highways in a seceded nation state.

BTW - among the first nations to offer, and send help, to the US after Katrina were Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand. They remembered our help after the Christmas Tsunami.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 73):
Medicare, Social Security,

US citizens and US nationals who have qualified for Social Security and Medicare do not lose their right to those payments because they move to or live in a foreign country. Social Security is always paid. Medicare is a big more difficult because the nation the retiree is living in has to have a health care system which will accept Medicare.

I have heard, but not verified, that many of the retirees living in Mexico are able to use Medicare for their healthcare.

There is a growing industry in Mexico of special villages of mainly US social security recipients.

If Texas seceded, the people on Social Security would still get their money.

Now the Texas 'President' if it is the current governor might outlaw Medicare.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 88):
All British Prime Ministers do that - just as Tony Blair congratulated George W Bush for his win in 2004

Yes, but after the Romney visit and Cameron's clear exasperation with Mitt, it has an additional context.
Cameron is not very good at hiding anger or irritation. Including with Romney, as we see here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0DdXpC_4MI&feature=relmfu

Britain played both sides in the US Civil War, a bit like the US with their covert aid to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's.
There was no real kinship with the Confederates, for a start the British Empire had banned slavery 60 years before, without a war.
Likewise neither Saddam's Iraq or even more covertly with US aid, Iran's Mullah's, were friends with the US.

There was however one leader who overstepped the mark in taking sides in the US 2012 election, the Israeli Prime Minister.

[Edited 2012-11-17 06:46:46]

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 88):
The last time the U.K. was actively involved in internal US matters was when your government supported the Confederacy/slavery during our Civil War almost 100 years after our Independence.

This isn't completely true. Early on, the U.K. felt they needed the cotton. But public opinion was anti-slavery and turned pretty strongly against the Confederacy quickly, the elements in the U.K. that supported the CSA for its cotton found that they could get it from other places too, the CSA started making a pretty big nuisance of itself by trying to use Canada as a staging point for covert raids, and as the war went on the South looked like it was fighting a losing battle anyhow. One reason the South got the neutral/somewhat positive response it did for so long was that the Union was sometimes making an even bigger nuisance of itself. The Confederate navy did end up buying a lot of its fast ships/blockade runners from French and British shipyards but they often had to do so through subterfuge and front companies because the Union could often shut the whole thing down by pointing out where the boats were actually going to end up. It's an interesting topic and I'd be interested to study it further at some point.


User currently offlinevarigb707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Go, please. Be my guest and leave the country already. These people are like children throwing tantrums.

[Edited 2012-11-17 07:42:18]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 91):
But public opinion was anti-slavery and turned pretty strongly against the Confederacy quickly

Also note that although slavery was a huge part of the Civil War, it was not the only reason. As noted, the British and other countries had some stake in all this that had nothing to do with slaves (mostly raw materials)

In fact, slavery wasn't really the "hot issue" until the Emancipation Proclamation. If I am off a bit in my history, please correct me



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
Yes, but after the Romney visit and Cameron's clear exasperation with Mitt,


Whatever. Had Romney won, Cameron would have congratulated him anyway and buried the hatchet. Cameron is smart enough to not let a minor gaffe by Romney spoil the close relationship between the two nations. I highly doubt Cameron would be protesting, sleeping in tents and pooping on police cars with the Occupy Wall Street crowd had Romney won.

Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
the British Empire had banned slavery 60 years before, without a war.


Yet supported it in other nations for many years after we fought to end it on our lands.
You need to get over this tit-for-tat nonsense. The US and U.K. will continue to work together regardless of who we elect.
By the way, I rarely come across Americans that are so obsessed with who your country elects. Why the obsession with who we elect? Regardless of who the U.K. elects, it doesn't change my opinion of your country.
I like the U.K. but NOT because of who you choose to elect as your leaders.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 89):
There is a difference between helping recovery from a natural disaster, and spending tens of billions of dollars over several years rebuilding state level infrastructure.


Why are you telling me this?
I was responding to blueflyer who seems to only want to enforce border security IF the red states left the US.
I already know the difference between and aid and a full-scale rebuild.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 81):
Can/are there any criminal charges laid against the people who engage these workers to do "yard work" ?


Very rare cases. Once in a blue moon, some illegals will be rounded up and the factory will get a huge fine. That doesn't happen very often.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 81):
Seem to me, that the people who employ these "illegals" should face some sort of punishment as well don't you think ?


  
Agreed!
That would result in many politicians (in both parties) as well as many of your favorite actors being hauled off to prison.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):

Also note that although slavery was a huge part of the Civil War, it was not the only reason. As noted, the British and other countries had some stake in all this that had nothing to do with slaves (mostly raw materials)

In fact, slavery wasn't really the "hot issue" until the Emancipation Proclamation. If I am off a bit in my history, please correct me

It wasn't the only reason that there were contentions between South and North, but saying that there were other reasons for the Civil War proper is starting to split hairs. The reason Lincoln preferred to express, and the reason that most of the North seems to have been fighting for, was to restore the union after secession, but the reason the secession took place was definitely slavery, at least according to most of what I've read on the subject. Most recently, I read this document:

Quote:
The provisional constitution of the new nation was closely modeled on the old US Constitution, though it explicitly gave the Confederate president a six-year term; granted each member of the president's cabinet a seat in Congress; and banned tariffs as a protective measure, though it allowed them as source of government revenue. Surprisingly, not much was said about State's Rights, but very significantly the constitution guaranteed slavery, in section 9.4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Few thought this was an insignificant clause, either. Some jokers later suggested that the Confederate constitution only stopped short of making slavery mandatory, but in a sense it did, specifically stipulating that any state admitted to the Confederacy in the future would have to accept slavery. In blunter terms, the constitution defined the Confederacy as a slave nation. sident Alexander Hamilton> Stephens pointed out in an address in Savannah on 21 March -- what would be later called the "Cornerstone Speech" -- that while the Declaration of Independence had stated "all men are created equal", the Confederacy flatly rejected the idea that this included black people: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Bolding and annotations mine.

After the Emancipation Proclamation though, the "restoring the Union" reason put forward by the North didn't really stand on its own and slavery became a central issue, as you'd expect.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

To clarify, it's not so much that there weren't any other disputes about state versus federal power up to that point. Stuff like nullification, the alien and sedition acts, and even the use of the veto (Andrew Jackson overriding Congress' plans for federal-level road building on the basis of the Constitution making that the states' job, if I'm remembering right) had all come up before. It's my thought, however, that the only one of these issues that was significant enough to cause the South to secede was slavery.

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7300 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 94):
By the way, I rarely come across Americans that are so obsessed with who your country elects. Why the obsession with who we elect? Regardless of who the U.K. elects, it doesn't change my opinion of your country.

Because who the US elects can effect everyone on the planet, case in point Bush II, the idiot, so people outside the US do have a genuine interest.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 97):
Because who the US elects can effect everyone on the planet, case in point Bush II, the idiot, so people outside the US do have a genuine interest.



Tough. You're gonna have to accept who ever we elect - like it or not.
Also, the hatred and jealousy of the US dates long before Dubya.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3364 posts, RR: 12
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 98):
Tough. You're gonna have to accept who ever we elect - like it or not.

Fair enough, but that does go both ways. When a country elects someone the USA does not like, the USA should interfer either. But that is of course not likely, is it?



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 99):
Fair enough, but that does go both ways. When a country elects someone the USA does not like, the USA should interfer either.



  
Agreed!

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 99):
But that is of course not likely, is it?


Couldn't tell you. Politicians seem to haven their own agendas regardless of what the people want. That is why I don't get excited about any of them. All I can do is vote and hope for the best.
All you can do is gripe.   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 98):
Tough. You're gonna have to accept who ever we elect - like it or not.

An interest in who the US elects, or even a preference for one candidate over another, is not indicative of hatred. A Government will work with whoever is elected in any case but at least with an incumbent President you know roughly what to expect. With an incoming new person you may have to revise policies or approaches to adapt to that person's way of doing things or their may be a hope that he/she will be more amenable. But pretty much of the time it's same as, same as anyway. In public pronouncements candidates may say one thing but in Office they may just continue the same policy as their predecessors.

The other thing is that most people are intelligent enough to distinguish between the actions and policies of a Government and what ordinary citizens are like. As you yourself point out:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 100):
Politicians seem to have their own agendas regardless of what the people want.

People may get a say in electing someone but that doesn't mean that they support everything that person does, as can be seen by the sometimes intense criticism raised. And criticism isn't hatred either, unless it is irrational and done simply because the other person got in and not the preferred candidate. Sadly, we see that same attitude here in Australia. Some people criticise the Government not on the merit of what the Government does but because they (individual voters) voted for somebody else.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 94):
Whatever. Had Romney won, Cameron would have congratulated him anyway and buried the hatchet. Cameron is smart enough to not let a minor gaffe by Romney spoil the close relationship between the two nations. I highly doubt Cameron would be protesting, sleeping in tents and pooping on police cars with the Occupy Wall Street crowd had Romney won.

Yes, Cameron would have been polite, diplomatic of course.
But there would have been a tension, Mitt's gaffs also brought to notice some passages in some book he wrote about us, not offensive but revealing, about him. (Basically a bunch of exceptionalist BS that showed a zero amount of historical insight).

It did happen before, in 1992 the Conservatives very unexpectedly won a general election in the midst of a bad economy both here and in the USA.
Some of their spin doctors then went to advise George HW Bush's team for the 1992 US vote.
While the very different voting and general political systems might have made such advice of limited value, it did sour relations a bit with PM John Major when Clinton won.

The Conservatives in the UK should have some affinity with the Republicans, in 1992 they did.
In the last decade though, absolutely not.
Bill Maher, though being satirical - he is after all a comedian, illuminates why in his commentary on the UK 2010 election, even if he gets the name of the country wrong. (The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish also took part);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvl47ANhrx4&feature=related

Where there is a 'Special Relationship', is not in politics, but in intelligence and nuclear cooperation. For intel, NSA and it's UK counterpart, GCHQ, are almost fused together.
The UK gets access to the vast resources of the NSA, the NSA gets bases in the UK, Cyprus, the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic, the first two being particularly well sited for the Mid East.
A few people here object to the NSA site at Menwith Hill in England, seeing it as a symbol of a domineering US presence, they do not seem to know that a whole floor of the NSA HQ in the US is full of GCHQ staff.
(The only aircraft allowed into US airspace after the immediate post 9/11 shutdown, was carrying the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ).

As for coverage, I can tell you that it was the first item on the news only on the day of and after after the vote, prior to that it featured of course in the Hurricane Sandy coverage.
I think it was the lead in the tabloid papers only on the result.
But the coverage seemed generally to be the same level as the French Presidential Election earlier this year.
I've spent enough time in the US over the years to know that the UK news, led by the BBC, does more coverage of foreign stories generally than the traditional US Networks.

On the subject of slavery, after it's banning in the British sphere of influence, the Royal Navy did interdict US slave ships on the Atlantic, when they encountered them.
There was an element of 'screw the Munroe Doctrine' in this, what with Canada and all those other colonies in Caribbean.

[Edited 2012-11-18 01:27:49]

[Edited 2012-11-18 01:33:00]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39855 posts, RR: 74
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 101):
The other thing is that most people are intelligent enough to distinguish between the actions and policies of a Government and what ordinary citizens are like. As you yourself point out:



True but you'd be amazed at how many people get emotional and want to start an argument with you if you're an American. I remember back in 2006 when I did my trip around the world, it was only the European backpackers that wanted to get in to intense discussions about Bush and the Iraq war. I was very liberal at the time and made it very clear that I didn't support Bush or the war in Iraq. Yet that didn't seem good enough for them. Honestly I just wanted to enjoy my vacation. It was only the backpacker types that seemed to be so concerned. The Japanese, Thais and Turkish didn't give me any hassles about it. It was only the low-end backpacker tourist that seemed so obsessed. I occasionally run in to those types living here in Bangkok. I just ignore them now. When they insist and try to fish out my opinions on US political matters, I just take a few cheap-shots at Obama and then they squeal and run off.  
They can be so thin skinned.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinedallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

This is just plain nonsense. I am a conservative and a resident of Texas, but all of that secession talk just makes no sense. It will never happen, just a few nutcases voicing their opinions... By the way, the last I heard all 50 states had something similar going, so there are nut cases in every state in US.

I am no fan of Obama and his policies, I think they are just plain wrong, but there's no point to secede from US, absolutely not. And like other posters have pointed it out, people who are supporting this movement, do not have a slightest idea of how economically disastrous this would become.. This talk would die down after a couple of months.

As far as posters saying there are more people on welfare in Texas than in some other states, please remember that it has a very large population, so the numbers would get skewed if we go by the head counts.. There are good and bad things in every state, but there are a lot of great things in Texas, and not all republicans are nuts, just like not all democrats are socialists, there are idiots on both sides of the spectrum and always will be.



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Israel - Attacks Iran Before The US Election? posted Thu Aug 16 2012 06:14:55 by comorin
How To Watch US TV Shows From Overseas? posted Fri May 18 2012 07:21:02 by comorin
Dutch Apaches Refuse Help To AUS/US posted Fri Oct 22 2010 09:18:53 by Spacepope
What Are They Trying To Hide From Us? posted Tue Oct 6 2009 10:57:10 by KC135TopBoom
If M.A.N Import The Lion To The US posted Sat Aug 29 2009 21:00:10 by 747400sp
Mexico To Build Wall To Keep US Citizens Out posted Wed Jul 8 2009 20:55:44 by Marcus
How To Get A US Credit Card Abroad For ITunes posted Sun Apr 5 2009 01:57:31 by ManuCH
Russian Forces Took 4 Humvee's Belonging To The US posted Tue Aug 19 2008 12:47:37 by Mortyman
Sudan Immigrant To Carry US Flag In Beijing posted Thu Aug 7 2008 15:22:03 by Johnboy
Chavez: "We Aren't Going To Send Oil To The US" posted Sun Feb 10 2008 15:31:20 by FriendlySkies