Skip to comments.Will White House be forced to respond to Texas secession petition?
Posted on 11/13/2012 11:37:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
I don't want to be mean, but how dense can you be? What percentage of the population was on the dole then? What percentage is on the dole today? Not to mention that Johnson has more in common with Romney and Bush than Obama.
What did Nixon do with those wins? He permanently ensconced Johnson's welfare state, and he was willing to end the space program to do it.
What you fail to understand is that winning elections is only good for us in relative terms. You have to go back nearly a hundred years to even find a pause in our leftward tack. After every republican president the budget is larger, the number of people on the dole is greater and the culture is coarser.
George W. Bush oversaw a bigger expansion of the government than Bill Clinton.
Even when we win, we lose.
“the north did everything it could to provoke the southerners into war”
That may be true, and certainly they negotiated in bad taste. But the whole “I’ve been had!” defense of the South is misguided. Whether manipulated or not, they did fire. FDR backed Japan into a corner and goaded into war, if not held the Pacific fleet as bait and withheld advanced notice of attack from commanders at Pearl Harbir. Nevertheless, Japan is responsible, as is the South.
The better argument is the one that doesn’t sophistically entangle the “first shot” with the war that followed. Firing on Sumter was not grounds for total war and forcible repatriation. If the North was justified in conquering the South, it was not because of Sumter. Whatever a war based solely on Sumter would’ve looked like, it is not the war we got.
Think of it like WWI. Convention had it that it started with the assassination of the heir to the Austrian empire’s throne. Not so. That started an Austro-Serbian war. The bigger war came through a chain of events emanatining from the little war, but it was nit sufficient cause. Without Germany invading Belgium there is no bigger war. Or maybe a bigger war would’ve broken out anyway, but the war we got was started by Germany, not Gavrilo Principe.
Take WWII (please). Historians either date it to 1936 because that’s the beginning of Japanese expansionism or more commonly the Nazi invasion of Poland. However, that only covers the Sino-Japanese and Anglo-French-German wars. The bigger Pacific and European wars start only when Japan attacks the British and US empires and Germany declares war on Russia and the US. For simplicity’s sake we pretend they follow of course from the “first shots,” but no. Subsequent steps are not inevitable. They have to br chosen.
They did not attack the North to keep slavery. They stole federal property to keep the feds from doing fed things to them—for instance taxing—after secession. The theoretical war sparked by that incident, like I said, would have been different from the one we remember. The real war started because the feds decided to treat secession as an insurrection, and it was fought to force Southern states back into the union.
It was most emphatically NOT an invasion of North by the South to preserve slavery.
“You have to go back nearly a hundred years to even find a pause in our leftward tack.”
Coolidge, yes. Reagan represented mostly a symbolic victory. He barely managed to slow growth, let alone pause it, let utterly alone reverse it. The last time we actually reversed ourselves in any meaningful way was Harding’s (or Mellon’s) normalcy after Wilson’s War Socialism, and even that was hamstrung by the annus horibillis of 1913. The last principled stand for laissez-faire was Cleveland. But who am I kidding? It was only a matter of time after 1865.
Whoops, I meant bad faith, not bad taste.
“You cant argue out of fear.”
Agreed. I’ll say more like discretion.
Leftists are so intellectually dishonest it is almost moot to even try to argue a point with them.
I have also read the threads arguing the Civil War causes here on FR, and freepers do not always play nice with each other.
I was just not in the mood to rile up my fellow freepers who happen to view that war as a single-issue conflict.
No. What is the gist of it??
Right now,I think the Atlas Shrugged scenario seems to be playing out. Notice all of the companies since the election last week that served notice that are not hiring or will be laying off?
But then again, the Civil War scenario could be playing out as well. Check out the headlines in today’s Drudge Report. The Secession movement is building steam.
I don't believe this will actually happen, nor do I want to see it happen. I want to correct the problems, not run away from them.
I will say that Texas has enough strengths to talk about this, even if it is not a "real" proposal to most people. I think it adds to the incentive to fix the problems, as this is a possible if not probable outcome otherwise.
The South still wanted to keep its institution of slavery. The South can name its war with the US anything they want but The War Of Northern Aggression. The South did attack first. The feds replied in kind and fought to preserve the Union.
Check your atlas. Manassas is in Virginia. If the south legally had the right to secede, then moving an army to a town within its own borders could hardly be called an invasion. Further, the fact that Ft Sumter was not evacuated by the Federal troops was a breach of Confederate sovereignity which could legitimately be construed as an act of aggression. Think about the response that the US would have had if the British had failed to evacuate New York, for instance. Would the US have been an aggressor if the British had maintained garrisons in US territory and the US attacked those garrisons?
Obviously, the north had the moral high ground, but it’s quite possible to make a legalistic argument that the north in fact was the aggressor in the civil war.
Until the South declared war everything still belonged to the Union. The South couldn’t declare sovereignty until a formal deceleration. Other than that, they were just a rebel bunch committing sedition.
The main thrust was that various groups such as conservatives, blacks, liberals, took over sections of the Country.
There are real questions surrounding the original admittance of the Republic of Texas to the United States in 1845. The annexation of Texas was by a simple majority vote in Congress instead of by Treaty. This was done because both the United States and the Republic of Texas could not come to a Treaty agreement, so it was accomplished by a vote in Congress and a vote by the citizens of the Republic. As Sam Houston said, “Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations,” and Texas has continued to keep its independent spirit for 163 years.
“See my tagline.” by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was, as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
Interesting that you brought that to my attention. My great grandparents carried my infant grandfather to America from Austria Hungary
You may also be interested in this
Brown shirts: obama 2008
Homeland Security graduates first Corps of Obamas Brown Shirts
Here’s a thought. How about we just start a petition to change the country’s name to “The Chicago States of America”?
I agree with your comments there, and as long as Texas can take a pass on attracting more illegal aliens to the state, there will be time later.
If it does attract them, it may be difficult to extract later.
I got an interesting email a couple years ago that was the testimony of an Austrian who was there during the time Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany.
The citizens welcomed it with open arms (at first) because of the great promises of “hope and change” so desparately desired by them during tough times. They were blissfully ignorant of the real trouble they were getting themselves into.
“I dont think succession gets us back on the right track. It further divides us as a nation.”
The nation is already at or close to that point where it has become irreconcilably divided.
For months now, I have been predicting in my posts here on FR that this election would not serve to “unite” the nation, but instead illustrate how divided it has become, and actually exacerbate those divisions. Can you point out any recent events that indicate otherwise?
Conservatives look from their side of the divide at the left, and wonder why they think as they do and believe what they believe. The left, on the other hand, has no interest in even considering what we think they’re doing wrong. The elements of division have grown so stark that neither side can begin to understand the other, and in most cases hates the other side’s guts.
The United States, as a people, is NEVER going to be “united” again, at least in the sense that it was in, say, 1952. Those times are past and gone (and I was alive in 1952). They ain’t comin’ back.
Having said that, as a conservative, I could live in such a divided nation, so long as where I lived was a “conservative-dominant” (red) area, and within such places conservative and old-time traditional American principles and mores prevailed. I wouldn’t care what the heathens of New York or San Francisco did, so long as they would leave me (and us) alone. I sense that you are of a like mind.
However, the left can NEVER permit this. From their viewpoint, they cannot be satisfied until everyone has come under their diktats, under their boot. They will use the full force of governmental power, including the military (if they can coax them into firing on Americans) and the increasingly-militarized police (which already does).
I see but two possible courses for the future, particularly considering the “demographic directions” in which we’re going:
1. The people “of the red” (conservatives) will eventually be forced to live under the will of the people “of the blue” (the left). They will no longer have “the national numbers” by which to resist, at least by way of peaceful, “conventional channels”.
2. The people of the red will reach the point where they realize that some kind of “separation” from the blues has become the only pathway by which to re-gain their own freedoms.
I’m a realist. That’s what I see.
Who could have predicted, ten years ago, that there would be so much open talk of “secession” today? Who could have dreamed?
Back around 1985, if someone had told you that by 1992 the Soviet Union would have voluntarily dissolved itself, you would have told them they were out of their minds. Where’s the once-mightly U.S.S.R. today?
Perhaps what we’re not ultimately headed for is “secession” per se (an event where one side proclaims independence against the other side’s will), but rather a peaceful “dissolution” (voluntarily agreed to by both sides).
One thing is for certain:
We can’t go the way we’re going now, and last too many decades longer.
“I have also read the threads arguing the Civil War causes here on FR, and creepers do not always play nice with eachother.”
That’s true, but it’s true of pretty much every thread.
“The feds replied in kind”
“In kind” is precisely not how they replied. Preserving the union, or more accurately conquering the South and forcing it back into the union, has nothing to do with an in kind response to Sumter. I have no idea how history was ever so fooled. Except that everyone now thinks slavery is bad, and therefore the South must be to blame.
“The South did attack first”
Your mind operates in a manner foreign to me. This is true, so far as it goes. But you say it as if it means the South invaded the North and tried to turn it into a client state perpetually under the thumb of Richmond. Certainly this is what Lincoln, too, implies, otherwise the Gettysburg Address makes no sense.
However, the attack was a casualty free shelling of a fort, which amounts to theft. The war that followed seemed to use it as a pretext, but of course repatriation of rebels has nothing to do with stealing federal property. The war the North was justified in continuing after Sumter, like I said, was a war to retake lost property, be recompensed for its trouble, and to some extent punishing the other side. They weren’t justified in conquest. Or if they were, not by Sumter.
“the fact that Ft Sumter was not evacuated by the Federal troops was a breach of Confederate sovereignty which could legitimately be construed as an act of aggression”
I don’t agree, and figure all federal property to be grandfathered in, so to speak, even if territory around it becomes Confederate, in the same manner as Guantanamo Bay. Of course, the only reason we’re still in Guantanamo is that we could crush Cuba whenever we so chose, so it’s more like a de factor occupation. The North had reason to fear the South, unlike Cuba, and also thinking you could maintain a fort in the middle of one of the South’s largest harbors was provocative, and no sovereign nation would idly accept it.
It wasn’t so much aggressive as passive aggressive, but the North was at fault by negotiating in bad faith for compensated surrender of federal property. They obviously didn’t take the Confederacy at face value, were looking for a way to force them back in the union, and goaded them into firing the first shot.
Not that I relieve the South of committing an act of war. They did shoot first. It’s just that, as I’ve been saying, justified war on the part of the North resulting from Sumter in no way resembles the war that actually happened.
The war ended over a 150 years ago. The Union was preserved. So do your "what if's" should the South had prevailed.
Best thing to do is get over it.
They just ignore the rules when they want to avoid dealing with something:
An official White House website that asks for petitions from voters has apparently killed a move to get an honorary seat for a cat who came in third in a U.S. Senate race.
If the Obama White House can side-step important issues like that and get away with it, they can easily ignore secession petitions.
There are a lot more liberaltarian lost causers on this site than I previously imagined.
I understand the term “liberaltarian,” though it’s wrongheaded. Foreign adventurism and drug criminalization have been argued against by libs long enough for us to mistake them as conservative. But to set the term alongside Lost Causers, as you call them, boy oh boy. If there’s one thing contemporary liberals believe in, it’s not the Confederacy.
I want to be clear that I believe slavery was an evil that should not have been allowed, however, that was not the primary reason for the war. As always, follow the money. There were disputes between the north and south about trade and tariffs, and that was the main reason for the war. Did you know that Lincoln did not free all slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation?
Right. It was just a proclamation. Had no validity anywhere. It was primarily aimed at the border states. James Buchanan's actions precipitated the war. It was his actions towards the Southern states that pushed it over the edge.