Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.
U4prez.com ^ | 4/16/2009 | Eric Gurr

Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog

What is the root of the secessionist movement? The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government. The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.

In years past politicians from both parties have used the guilt factor to increase spending for the "needy". This tempers the backlash from the populace as they realize they are to sacrifice a new boat, or nicer home, for the greater good of society. Today, citizens are being asked to sacrifice their children's education, vacations, and even the home they are in, so that money can be transferred from their wallets to multi-billion dollar corporations.

When we add more government controls and regulations on everything from cigarettes, to fast food and guns, we begin to see the problem. Government is now coming at everyone at some level, over some issue. This piling on is causing those fringe secessionist movements to became mainstream very quickly.

(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; confederacy; confederate; cwii; seceding; secession; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-660 next last
To: stand watie
never forget: to BE a hate-FILLED, arrogant,DAMNyankee is to be NO BETTER than a RACIST.

We need a "Southern Moses" to lead us out of this Federal Political Desert. Just one Southern Governor really needs to stand up. Please.....

251 posted on 04/17/2009 9:27:55 PM PDT by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: central_va
SORRY, but i see NOBODY that could be "the southron Moses", right now.

"Newt" COULD, but he's "too invested in" the STATIST, federal, BEAST.

free dixie,sw

252 posted on 04/17/2009 9:30:56 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: central_va
TOM TANCREDO of CO is "a possibility", imVho.

free dixie,sw

253 posted on 04/17/2009 9:34:49 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: central_va
somehow or another a sentence "got lost" from my last post.

it should say, "i know Tom & he's 'good people', for sure."

free dixie,sw

254 posted on 04/17/2009 9:37:16 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; savedbygrace
Because if you read the Reconstruction Acts, Congress did not readmit the states. There was no need to.

Ya think?

More impressive than the mere existence of the state constitutional provisions disenfranchising felons at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment is the congressional treatment of States readmitted to the Union following the Civil War. For every State thus readmitted, affirmative congressional action in the form of an enabling act was taken, and as a part of the readmission process the State seeking readmission was required to submit for the approval of the Congress its proposed state constitution. In March 1867, before any State was readmitted, Congress passed "An act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States," the so-called Reconstruction Act.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 US 24, 48-49 (1974)

255 posted on 04/17/2009 9:46:20 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
If that were true, the Constitution requires that the governor/legislature petition for assistance.

No it does not. Article IV, Section 4 refers to domestic violence, rioting and the like. Article I, Section 9, Clause 15 gives Congress the power to call up the militia to suppress insurrections and says nothing about requiring the governor to call first.

As it was, even Congress refused to call out the militia when the states seceded, and they went so far as to REJECT a proposed amendment prohibiting secession.

The milita wasn't called up until the confederacy initiated the war. And I don't believe an amendment to ban secession would have been wise. No such amendment was needed to ban unilateral secession because it wasn't legal to begin with.

Reservations of the right to secede unilaterally were meaningless because such actions were unconstitutional, and the Constitution trumps local and state constitutions and laws.

I knew you couldn't, as nowhere does the Constitution prevent secession.

And as I have said over and over and over again, it isn't secession that is prevented. It's just secession without the consent of the states.

256 posted on 04/18/2009 4:57:36 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Dude, 1795 precedes 1861.

Dude, who had seceded in 1795?

1869 is 8 years after the fact.

And the 1795, whe the Penhallow decision was handed down, was 20 years after 1775, when the issues that were decided first began taking place. All court decisions at every level take place after the fact, or hadn't you noticed that?

257 posted on 04/18/2009 5:01:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
It's a courtesy ping, something a pompous yankee might not understand.

Courtesy is something we seldom come across when dealing with the Southron contingent, yes.

Regarding his location, just because YOU haven't conversed with him doesn't mean I haven't. I count myself blessed to have a friend like Nolu Chan.

And I'm sure you have a high old time with him. Tell him I said "Hey" and ask him for the details on how Texas v. White was trumped up.

Regarding his location, just because YOU haven't conversed with him doesn't mean I haven't. I count myself blessed to have a friend like Nolu Chan.

If he had been banned then his user ID would have been pulled. It wasn't.

258 posted on 04/18/2009 5:05:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Ya think?

I know. Please quote from any of the Reconstruction acts where it refers to the rebel states as 'former states' or 'territories'. Please quote where the legislation says that the rebels states will be readmitted to the Union. Please direct me to the enabling acts that were passed to readmit the rebel states. Please point me to anything that says that the admission date for Virginia was January 1870. You can't, and the reason is that none of the rebel states were out of the Union for a single moment from the time they ratified the Constitution or were admitted to the Union until this very day.

259 posted on 04/18/2009 5:09:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Okay, we know your position on the legality of secession. But can you tell us if you'd approve of secession if a group of states (perhaps right in your very territory) finds that the other, more populous states are making it impossible for them function as the majority of their citizens desire.

Suppose, somewhere down the road, the mass population states on the coasts dominate the country politically to the point that the left is locked into unbroken decades of control of the three branches of government. The system of checks & balances no longer works. The two party system no longer works. The federal government casually restricts religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and other constitutional rights, having asserted that their “interpretation” of the Constitution raises the interests of homosexuals, feminists, illegal immigrants, and others above those traditional rights.

The large states filled with leftist voters flat out won't allow the conservative states to leave. Furthermore, the population of those large states continues to grow massively as the federal government has thrown the borders wide open to increase the size of its own constituency. It accomplished this by deliberately violating the immigration laws by not enforcing them.

What then? Can the aggrieved states peacefully seek their leave without the consent of the other states, on the grounds that the compact (the Constitution) has already been broken? Or are they trapped in this post-Constitutional situation forever?

260 posted on 04/18/2009 5:52:21 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
But can you tell us if you'd approve of secession if a group of states (perhaps right in your very territory) finds that the other, more populous states are making it impossible for them function as the majority of their citizens desire.

You can secede for any reason you want, or for no reason at all if that's your choice. The why is unimportant to me and is only of concern to those wanting to leave. My position is and always has been that if it is clear that the majority of the people of a state or states wishes to leave the Union and makes this desire clear to Congress, then it is Congress' duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all potential issues of disagreement and then vote to allow them to leave. If the state chooses armed conflict instead of negotiated and peaceful separation then all bets are off. They fight and win or they fight and lose, the ultimate outcome is in their hands. But in the end there is one, and only one peaceful way to separate and that through negotiation and agreement on both sides of the issue.

261 posted on 04/18/2009 6:24:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Thanks for the answer, it was a good one.

Here's a follow-up. In the scenario I described, which I think is very likely to be the situation we eventually face, Congress refuses to allow the conservative states to depart. This is a Congress that has long since broken free from the moorings of the Constitution and is maintained in power by voters it imported for the very purpose of undermining the electoral clout of American citizens. Would the states be justified in going their own way without authorization at that point?

262 posted on 04/18/2009 6:59:20 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
then it is Congress' duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all potential issues of disagreement and then vote to allow them to leave.

I don't believe you believe that. Why? because your Constitutional God, the Illinois Butcher(TM), would have laughed at your above stated position in April 1861. He turned away southern peace delegations and you know it. Unless you state that Lincoln was wrong, the Civil War unjust on the part of the Northern Aggression, then I am convinced you are a two face liar, i.e. a Yankee for short.

263 posted on 04/18/2009 7:25:48 AM PDT by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Here's a follow-up. In the scenario I described, which I think is very likely to be the situation we eventually face, Congress refuses to allow the conservative states to depart.

Why do you think it's the likely scenario? If it is clearly evident through any polling method you care to name that the clear majority of the people want to leave then what is the incentive for the Congress to refuse to negotiate a separation and allow them to leave? Especially when the alternative could be, would be, violence and civil strife? What is the motivation for that?

264 posted on 04/18/2009 7:45:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I don't believe you believe that.

And as I've said on prior occasions, I don't care what you believe.

He turned away southern peace delegations and you know it.

We're talking about negotiating a settlement before leaving, something the South wasn't interested in because it would have led to a peaceful separation. Lincoln refused to meet with a group that had already walked out, taken every bit of federal property they could get their hands on, and were there demanding even more. Who in their right mind would agree to that?

Unless you state that Lincoln was wrong, the Civil War unjust on the part of the Northern Aggression, then I am convinced you are a two face liar, i.e. a Yankee for short.

I thought you'd been convinced of that for a while? Back on the Confederate holiday sharing thread? But as I said then, and as I'll repeat now, I could not care less what you think. But let me state for the record that if I said I believed Lincoln was wrong and that the Civil War was due to Northern aggression then I would by lying.

265 posted on 04/18/2009 7:52:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well, you didn't answer the question regarding whether it would be appropriate for states to leave without congressional authorization in the scenario I described.

But to answer your question, the motivation for the left to retain the conservative states would be control. Leftists do not believe that anything should be outside the scope of their control. That's why they constantly ratchet up the size of government. They ultimately seek a world government from which no one could escape.

You've no doubt heard the old joke about the New York Times headline if the world was about to end: “WORLD TO END TOMORROW. WOMEN, MINORITIES TO SUFFER MOST”.

Well, if intelligent life were discovered in another galaxy, the Times headline would read: “INTELLIGENT LIFE DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER GALAXY. INTERGALACTIC GOVERNMENT SEEN AS NEEDED.”

The goal of the left in America isn't to live and let live. It's to steamroll over anyone who gets in their way. Take any issue and you can see the truth in this. Are they going to be satisfied with same-sex “marriage” in liberal cesspools like Vermont and Massachusetts? Of course not. They'll keep using the courts and using viral tactics (relocating same-sex couples to places like Alabama) until a fiat eventually forces all fifty states to comply. Once the states have complied, they can never let them go. They simply can't tolerate it.

This is an inherent part of modern liberalism. It is a universalist ideology which doesn't believe anyone should ever be outside of its control. Add in that the departing conservative states would likely be a source of tax revenue to keep places like California and New York afloat, and you can see why they wouldn't allow the departure.

266 posted on 04/18/2009 8:06:51 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Well, you didn't answer the question regarding whether it would be appropriate for states to leave without congressional authorization in the scenario I described.

Because I don't think it's a likely scenario. What you want is for me to agree that there are times when the Constitution allows a state to leave unilaterally. I don't agree with that so you're never going to get the answer you're looking for.

267 posted on 04/18/2009 8:13:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
We're talking about negotiating a settlement before leaving

How do you do that?

South: I want to leave, you want to talk about it please?

North: You can't leave, shut up with the "crazy" talk.

South: I am drafting secession articles, OK?

North: Go ahead, make my day.

South: Here is my Secession decree. Want to talk peace.

North: You are rebels, nothing more.

South: Get off of our land we are sovereign.

North: We will invade.

South: We figured as much.

268 posted on 04/18/2009 8:15:25 AM PDT by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ; All
AS USUAL, "N-S, The DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda" is posting DISHONEST "information" -, he KNOWS better;he CHOOSES not to DO better.

as Professor T Harry Williams , of LSU,used to say:

The unionists stoutly proclaimed that the states "in rebellion" were NEVER OUT of the union as long as there WAS a war, BUT once the war was over they treated the former CSA states as CONQUERED foreign territory.

DAMNyankees have FOREVER been HYPOCRITES & LIARS.

free dixie,sw

269 posted on 04/18/2009 8:46:44 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Talking to yourself, while not surprising, isn’t making your case.


270 posted on 04/18/2009 9:02:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
fyi, "central_va" makes a LOT more sense (even when talking to himself) than ANY of the ignorant, SELF-impressed, stupid DAMNyankee of "the coven" ever do on FR.

don't you get tired of being their "dear leader"??? it must be tiring leading a bunch of NITWITS, BIGOTS & FOOLS like the DAMNyankees you have as acolytes.

free dixie,sw

271 posted on 04/18/2009 9:35:56 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“But can you tell us if you’d approve of secession if a group of states (perhaps right in your very territory) finds that the other, more populous states are making it impossible for them function as the majority of their citizens desire.”

“You can secede for any reason you want, or for no reason at all if that’s your choice. The why is unimportant to me and is only of concern to those wanting to leave. My position is and always has been that if it is clear that the majority of the people of a state or states wishes to leave the Union and makes this desire clear to Congress, then it is Congress’ duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all potential issues of disagreement and then vote to allow them to leave. If the state chooses armed conflict instead of negotiated and peaceful separation then all bets are off. They fight and win or they fight and lose, the ultimate outcome is in their hands. But in the end there is one, and only one peaceful way to separate and that through negotiation and agreement on both sides of the issue.”

Herein lies the rub. “..it is the Congress’ duty to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement....and then vote to allow them to leave.”
Do you seriously believe that this Congress would allow Texas or any other state to peaceably leave? No, they are too much into control and power. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution, States Rights or anything else that might interfere with their power and control.
What option then would the seceding state or states have left other than unilateral secession?


272 posted on 04/18/2009 10:14:08 AM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
It is possible for people in a society to have the vote and representation and not be physically oppressed, but still live in an intolerable situation.

Maybe, but we figure things like that out in reference to concrete situations. Occupied Europe in the 1940s didn't have voting or representation, so they'd have been right to rebel, though given the resources Germany had to crush uprisings, they had to be contented with smaller kinds of resistance.

The colonists in the 1770s weren't represented in Parliament. They had the right to petition Parliament and the King. They used it and it didn't do any good. They were justified in defending themselves, and when the British attacked, war, and a justifiable rebellion was the result.

In the 1860s, the Southern states were represented in Congress. Southern White men had the vote and had used it to get themselves real power in the government. So I'd say that they couldn't claim the right to rebellion against tyranny, but should have worked within the system. If they couldn't get what they wanted in Congress or from the President, they could have worked at the national level to dissolve their union with the rest of the country.

And if the federal government didn't want to let the slave states go? Well, when the Martin Luther King holiday was proposed, I thought it was a bad idea. But now I'd have to admit that King went about things the right way -- through protest and nonviolent civil disobedience. That was better than what Davis and the secessionists did.

Of course protest marches wouldn't have worked against a real tyranny, but neither King nor Davis was up against a tyranny. And of course the problem with peaceful protest is that it works with "simple" questions, like basic freedom. If you want fundamental rights or freedom from a larger polity, it may work (in a constitutional and democratic country). It's harder to use it to determine what specific policies should be.

Nonviolent protest wasn't a common idea a century and a half ago. Americans were in love with the idea of force, so it came to secession and war. But looking back, it looks as though King's way (whatever you think of other aspects of his life) was superior to Davis's.

I'm not saying anything about how things are now, and I don't know what the future holds, so I can't give advice on what to do now. But there are tides and cycles in these things. Look at how things were a few years ago, compared to how they are now. You might see a continuing, unstoppable decline. But the other possibility is that what's going on now will pass as other periods have passed.

I doubt you're going to see reparations to women (How would that work? Would everyone whose ancestry was at least half female be getting a check?). Movements benefit from energy and support (or at least public indifference about their goals) for I time and then they exhaust themselves or at least, they go into hibernation. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about these things, but I suspect that at some point this gay wave is going to subside. Maybe about the time big gay newspapers start to go bottom up.

I remember being very p*ss*d off at Clinton's election, but the country survived. I had a friend from Latin America who told me, "Well, it's not so bad to let the other guys run things once in twenty years or so." Maybe things are different now and we're really headed for hell (and it's only been 8 years since the last Democratic President, not 20), but what's important is what he wasn't saying.

My friend came from one of those countries that had been derailed by a military coup. It took decades to get representative government back. Maybe that coup was unavoidable to prevent a left-wing tyranny, but what I got from his comment was that if we can possibly get through four years with our institutions intact, maybe we'd better not be rash about our decisions now.

273 posted on 04/18/2009 10:29:40 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: x
btw, tell everyone here about YOUR earned doctorate/academic credentials. = you know, those "credentials" that you do NOT have.

thus, i would, if i were you (that thought makes me SHUDDER), keep my mouth SHUT about anyone else's education. (fwiw, you write like a "not too bright" 10th grade dropout.)

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

274 posted on 04/18/2009 10:42:40 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
btw, tell everyone here about YOUR earned doctorate/academic credentials. = you know, those "credentials" that you do NOT have.

thus, i would, if i were you (that thought makes me SHUDDER), keep my mouth SHUT about anyone else's education. (fwiw, you write like a "not too bright" 10th grade dropout.)

Shazam, swattie! Still going on about that? What crawled up into your head and died?

If I remember, you started it with the whole edjumakashun thing.

I was just saying, if you want to put people down for that, it helps if your own typing doesn't look illiterate.

Otherwise people will just look at you funny and ignore you (maybe not a bad idea) ...

275 posted on 04/18/2009 10:59:40 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

And you’re again caught between Scylla and Charibdes.


276 posted on 04/18/2009 11:35:29 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Well, I gotta give Rick Perry credit. He’s hacked me off multiple times, but he was the first big named pol that uttered the “S” word, and him saying it is what’s made people realize this is more than just a few disgruntled people. Getting 750,000 to show up at the tea parties also got their attention.


277 posted on 04/18/2009 11:41:50 AM PDT by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
Do you seriously believe that this Congress would allow Texas or any other state to peaceably leave? No, they are too much into control and power. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution, States Rights or anything else that might interfere with their power and control.

Why not if the alternative is a state where the overwhelming majority of the people don't want to be there and the likelyhood of violence? If 75% of Texas said that they wanted to leave then I'd be the first one in Congress to offer to chair the negotiating committee. Keeping Texas, or anyone else, under those kinds of circumstances makes no sense at all.

278 posted on 04/18/2009 11:43:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: rrdog

While the media will say they Texas does not have the right to do this outright (there are some court cases which agree, there are certain paths they can take to get this goal).

While they do not have the right to do this outright, there are certain paths they can take to get this goal. Come on, you know this is possible because this is the same country which gives exceptions to tax cheats through cleaver legal
maneuvers.

Really it is just using the legal system creatively.

Texas probably has the best chance at success. Here is just one way how it can work. The annexation agreement made when Texas joined the union provided that Texas would be able to divide into 5 states. This would create 8 more conservative Senators.

If Texas were to try to divide and be rebuffed, the US would be in violation of the agreement and Texas should be able to go free.

It is not all that far fetched.

Regardless of the TX situation, the movement was larger than expected. And it is just a start because the thing about grass roots is that it will only take hold, grow and spread.

Some pics here:

http://tinyurl.com/texasmayleave


279 posted on 04/18/2009 11:47:32 AM PDT by anglian (0bama's Stealth Reparations: "Mouthfulls of gimme and handfulls of much obliged")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
fyi, "central_va" makes a LOT more sense (even when talking to himself) than ANY of the ignorant, SELF-impressed, stupid DAMNyankee of "the coven" ever do on FR.

And of all the people on this forum who is better qualified to judge whether or not someone is making sense or not than you? </sarcasm>

That book arrive yet?

280 posted on 04/18/2009 11:56:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
And you’re again caught between Scylla and Charibdes.

Perhaps. But doesn't it make more sense to try the peaceful way first? The one least likely to lead to acrimony and hostility? Shouldn't a settlement agreeable to both sides followed by peaceful separation and friendly relations be the first, best goal for both parties?

281 posted on 04/18/2009 12:08:28 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If 75% of Texas said that they wanted to leave then I'd be the first one in Congress to offer to chair the negotiating committee. Keeping Texas, or anyone else, under those kinds of circumstances makes no sense at all.

Probably not. But if 75% of the people in one large part of Texas didn't want to leave, that could be a problem, which is why you can't just have people declaring that the whole state has left the union.

FWIW, if Texas were to split into 5 states, there's no guarantee that all those states would be Republican. South Texas and West Texas might not be. Not so long ago, East Texas was Democrat country as well.

If Texas decided to withdraw from the union and form a country with some other states, the state would probably have to divide in some way. No way the other states would want to give Texas that much power.

Given how traumatic that would be for Texans, I don't see it happening. But an independent Texas absorbing other states or territories ... that could happen.

282 posted on 04/18/2009 1:38:26 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: x
Probably not. But if 75% of the people in one large part of Texas didn't want to leave, that could be a problem, which is why you can't just have people declaring that the whole state has left the union.

That would be a problem I didn't think about. If the secession movement was regional within the state and, for example, the Gulf coast area voted overwhelmingly to stay and the rest of the state voted overwhelmingly to leave then what do you do? Would Texas be willing to split off that section ala West Virginia and allow it to stay? Does Texas drag an unwilling part with it? The whole concept is fraught with peril.

FWIW, if Texas were to split into 5 states, there's no guarantee that all those states would be Republican. South Texas and West Texas might not be. Not so long ago, East Texas was Democrat country as well.

Texas can split into 5 states or 50 and unless Congress approves then it isn't anything but one big lump of a state.

Given how traumatic that would be for Texans, I don't see it happening. But an independent Texas absorbing other states or territories ... that could happen.

I don't see it happening either, with Texas or any other state. All the secessionist who are hell bound to leave the U.S. will have to find another method.

283 posted on 04/18/2009 2:30:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The whole concept is fraught with peril.

I just want to be free from you, politically speaking. The only peril would be from an invading army led by Federal Bootlicking storm troopers like yourself.

284 posted on 04/18/2009 2:44:31 PM PDT by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I just want to be free from you, politically speaking.

Why not in every way, what with me being such a liar and all.

The only peril would be from an invading army led by Federal Bootlicking storm troopers like yourself.

And no doubt your rebel horde would lose again.

285 posted on 04/18/2009 5:05:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: central_va
We need a "Southern Moses" to lead us out of this Federal Political Desert. Just one Southern Governor really needs to stand up. Please.....

What, Perry isn't good enough for you? Why not see if you can get Crist to join?

286 posted on 04/18/2009 5:07:11 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: x
actually "the edumakashun thing" started with Rush Limbaugh, as MOST people here know.

don't you get tired of being ridiculed as a DUNCE by most FReepers???? also, LOTS of FReepers just want everyone, who is a member of "The DAMNyankee Coven of Fools, Bigots, Nitwits & HATERS", to LEAVE www.freerepublic.com, forever, with the singular exception of your "dear leader", N-S.

NOBODY is FOOLED, by the way, by your SILLY attempt to avoid admitting that you HAVE no "educational credentials", of note.

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

287 posted on 04/18/2009 5:11:38 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
i'm astounded that you are FOOLISH enough to keep asking about the ILL, as you are going to get your "nose rubbed in" your LIES, as soon as it arrives.

PLEASE remind everyone again that you claim that Hubert Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,ooo to 150,ooo Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA.

laughing AT you, as EVERYONE soon will.

free dixie,sw

288 posted on 04/18/2009 5:17:20 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
i'm astounded that you are FOOLISH enough to keep asking about the ILL, as you are going to get your "nose rubbed in" your LIES, as soon as it arrives.

Oh I'm looking forward to it. Now let me see, was it 100,000 free blacks or was it 150,000? It's so hard to keep your stories straight.

PLEASE remind everyone again that you claim that Hubert Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,ooo to 150,ooo Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA.

OK. H.C. Blackerby NEVER says in BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY that 100,000 to 150,000 free Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA. Don't forget the 'free' part of your asinine claim.

289 posted on 04/18/2009 5:23:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
YES or NO,(without your usual evasions/"changing the subject"/LIES/nonsense) does Blackerby say that 100,OO0 TO 150,OOO Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA???

NO OTHER answer than a simple YES or NO is acceptable.

as you are WELL AWARE slaves COULD NOT serve IN the forces (though many slaves were contracted to the forces by their owners)& were NOT ever counted as military members.

fwiw, NOBODY who has heard your LIES, DECEITS, EVASIONS has ANY doubt who is telling THE TRUTH here. in case you've lost contact with the same reality that everyone else perceives as FACTS.

free dixie,sw

290 posted on 04/18/2009 5:38:03 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
YES or NO,(without your usual evasions/"changing the subject"/LIES/nonsense) does Blackerby say that 100,OO0 TO 150,OOO Blacks served in the military forces of the CSA??? NO OTHER answer than a simple YES or NO is acceptable.

No he does not.

as you are WELL AWARE slaves COULD NOT serve IN the forces (though many slaves were contracted to the forces by their owners)& were NOT ever counted as military members.

So it is your contention that 100,000 to 150,000 free blacks served in confederate forces. And you say that Blackerby will support that? I can hardly wait for the book to arrive and for you to post a page number. If you post the page number then I'll scan it in and display it.

291 posted on 04/18/2009 5:49:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
WHY do you continue to TRY to evade the TRUTH, about what the book says???

is it because you believe that we FREEPERS are TOO STUPID to KNOW that you are LYING once more (as you have countless times before on any number of WBTS matters)???

when the relevant page is posted on FR, what LIE will you THEN tell???

laughing AT you, LIAR.

free diixe,sw

292 posted on 04/18/2009 6:08:39 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
WHY do you continue to TRY to evade the TRUTH, about what the book says???

Why do you continue to lie about what the book says?

when the relevant page is posted on FR, what LIE will you THEN tell???

Post the relevant page and I'll worry about it then. When's the book supposed to arrive?

293 posted on 04/18/2009 6:15:32 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
as you are fully aware "ILL loans" come when they come.

i hoped that the ILL that i received last week was BIB&G, but it was a novel that no local library had a copy of.

nonetheless, your time until being AGAIN exposed, to EVERYONE on FR, as a KNOWING LIAR, a laughingstock & a FOOL is running out.

inasmuch as you ALWAYS have some WEAK excuse for your evasions/deceits, my guess is that you are "hanging your hat on" the FACT that Blackerby NEVER specifically says that the 100,000 to 150,00 Blacks who served were FREE.- fyi, that will convince NOBODY, who has followed this subject, as i've said, from the first, what Blackerby & i, as well as YOU know. = that slaves are not & NEVER were counted as "members of the forces" (OR after the war, as veterans of that war, either.)

laughing AT you. (btw, do you realize that you just tacitly admitted, in your last post, that you KNOW that what i quoted Blackerby as saying is IN his book???)

free dixie,sw

294 posted on 04/18/2009 6:40:29 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Non-Sequitur,

In your opinion dose the Federal Government have the power within the Constitution to regulate Firearms?

Does the commerce clause ‘trump’ our Bill of Rights?

Would you support a Federal mandate or Bill making anti-gay comments by a Pastor a “Hate Crime”

295 posted on 04/18/2009 6:56:05 PM PDT by Rustabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What would it take for you to defend the people of a given State that chose to live Free? From Federal Tyranny that is?

I'm not talking about arguing on the Internet...

296 posted on 04/18/2009 7:06:25 PM PDT by Rustabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Rustabout
fwiw, "N-S" is a STATIST of the most virulent sort. (as MOST hate-FILLED,SELF-impressed, arrogant, DAMNyankees are! = it is their NATURE, just as it is the NATURE of a serpent to slither.)

while he may (as BHO does!!) "give lip service to" individual freedom/the BOR, he is basically against LIBERTY for anyone (especially those of us who are southerners!), IF such LIBERTY makes the Federal Leviathan less powerful.

like all too many people from "up there", he is seemingly quite comfortable with the Federal's boot upon his neck.

free dixie,sw

297 posted on 04/18/2009 7:32:20 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to TYRANTS is OBEDIENCE to God. T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
God Almighty will judge us all....

We must hope that a heart wouldn't grow so cruel that driving tanks over children equates to some sort of Federal Justice!

stand ,

I'm done arguing over times of past struggles..We must hold that memory close to our own heart as we fight this Federal beast..again
We must not loose this next war for our Independence or OUR kin will be told of us as treasonous traders

If N-S obliges to take the side of Freedoms enemy...Then let your aim hold true

298 posted on 04/18/2009 9:38:28 PM PDT by Rustabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But doesn't it make more sense to try the peaceful way first? The one least likely to lead to acrimony and hostility? Shouldn't a settlement agreeable to both sides followed by peaceful separation and friendly relations be the first, best goal for both parties?

Sure, but the question I posed to you was whether you would support secession without consent IF the Congress refused to allow it and if the existing federal government was operating outside the bounds of the Constitution.

The problem here, I think, is that you and some other posters in these threads don't understand the nature of modern liberalism. You think today's liberals are descendants of the pro-labor, big spending smoke-filled-room pols of the New Deal era. Or maybe descendants of the William Jennings Bryan style progressives who wanted a lot of government programs to fulfill their Christian zeal. Whatever problems there may have been with those old style liberals, they weren't un-American or hostile to our national heritage.

But that isn't what we're dealing with. Today's liberals are descendants of the Socialists, anarchists, and Reds who came over from Europe and became concentrated in the large Northern cities during the Ellis Island era. They slowly wormed their way into the Democratic Party, and seized majority control of it in the 1960s. Since then they've slowly turned it into an outright totalitarian party, a party determined to refashion America as a one-party leftist state. They can never be satisfied or appeased because they are messianic and are in a permanent state of war against our entire civilization, which they regard as racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, and so forth.

Now that they have their first ideologically pure ally in the presidency, we can see what we're facing. Just in the past week or so we've seen the Adorno-like Napolitano document essentially defining conservative opinion as terrorism. We've seen the launching of a crusade to "diversify" neighborhoods, complete with radio ads informing the public that they won't be permitted to avoid "diversity" anywhere. We've seen Obama cozying up to Castro, Chavez, Lula, and others. We also saw Obama cover up Christian symbols during his speech at Georgetown. We've seen a media that's getting more partisan by the day, as epitomized by the sneering, hostile coverage of the tea parties.

We're dealing with people who do not believe an alternative to their ideology has a right to exist. Or that anyone on earth has a right to escape their ideology. That's what we're facing. We're now dealing with a political party that has declared war on our nation's heritage and which seeks to turn our nation into a jackboot stomping an American face forever and ever and ever. They believe the entire planet should be under their ideology. Why would they ever allow a chunk of America to voluntarily depart?

299 posted on 04/18/2009 11:14:37 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
nonetheless, your time until being AGAIN exposed, to EVERYONE on FR, as a KNOWING LIAR, a laughingstock & a FOOL is running out.

I'm quaking in my boots.

inasmuch as you ALWAYS have some WEAK excuse for your evasions/deceits, my guess is that you are "hanging your hat on" the FACT that Blackerby NEVER specifically says that the 100,000 to 150,00 Blacks who served were FREE.- fyi, that will convince NOBODY, who has followed this subject, as i've said, from the first, what Blackerby & i, as well as YOU know. = that slaves are not & NEVER were counted as "members of the forces" (OR after the war, as veterans of that war, either.)

Tap-dancing like crazy I see, not to mention changing your story. But as you yourself has said, everyone knows that only free blacks were allowed to serve. So if Blackerby uses figures like 100,000 to 150,000, or even if he uses figures like 300,000, then by your own claims then each and every one of them has to be free, right? And the fact that such figures are between 5 and 15 times the total number of free black males of military age in the South is meaningless in your world.

laughing AT you. (btw, do you realize that you just tacitly admitted, in your last post, that you KNOW that what i quoted Blackerby as saying is IN his book???)

Post the page number.

300 posted on 04/19/2009 5:28:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-660 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson