Posted on 10/11/2017 4:58:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
California should join Spain.
I thought this was going to be an article on how much Sessions sucks and it’s not OK.
California is a welfare state. In Spain if you don’t work you had better have relatives or some charity to help you because you’ll starve before you get a penny from the government. That’s why most migrants who land on the coast from Africa head straight for the border.
If California seceded, it would become part of Mexico before too long. Or a Mexican proxy. And it would be cheered by White liberals — right up until the Government started seizing their property.
Countries don’t allow secession because they lose tax dollars.
Who knew General Grant was the originator of the song “Imagine”!
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
President Davis, CSA
Sounds great, and they can go... as soon as they pay up their share of the $23T deficit.
Not sure exactly how much, but in the spirit of how a corporate merger/split affects the stock share price, $2T should cover it. For now.
The secession became a rebellion when they shelled Fort Sumter. And Lincoln reacted in the only way he could.
If the South had not shelled Fort Sumter, there would have been a good chance there would not have been war.
But too many Southerners thought they were Napoleon, Genghis and Alexander in overalls, and they wanted war.
Last time I checked, California was one of the top 10 economies in the world by itself and paid more money to the Federales than it got back.
I don’t know if there is a problem with the way these things are measured or not.
But I still would not be sad to see it go. We would get rid of two Democratic Senators, and its 53 representatives would reallocated among other states, some, perhaps, to new conservative districts?
You are confusing secession with war. The two concepts are independent of each other.
> I say, let people go their own way. <
Down to what level? If, say, California has the right to secede from the U.S., does San Bernardino County have the right to secede from California? And does the town of Rialto have the right to secede from San Bernardino County?
Is there a point where it’s ‘sovereignty for me, but not for thee’?
Just askin’.
California should join Bolivia.
Actually, he was drawing a distinction between the two. He was suggesting that secession might have succeeded had the seceding southerners not attacked a US fort and started a war.
No, it started out as a secession and Lincoln had not called for troops. The South turned it into a war which turned it into a rebellion.
Then Lincoln called for troops.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. "
And in case anyone thinks this was a momentary lapse instead of a real statement of Lincoln's opinion on the subject, he said the same thing again in 1852.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
So we should accept Lincoln's belief that people have a right to independence if they wish it.
Mexico itself is pretty much ran by white liberals.
Wow. You really are a realist. I believe you are absolutely right about this.
They shelled Ft. Sumter because Lincoln sent a fleet of Warships to attack them. You just don't hear about it in your history lessons because it doesn't support the narrative that the Confederates attacked first.
Lincoln swung first, but the Confederates actually connected first.
If the South had not shelled Fort Sumter, there would have been a good chance there would not have been war.
This is incorrect. Lincoln needed a war and he was going to cause a war one way or the other. At the very moment the fleet of warships was sailing to Charleston to sweep away all resistance, he had a warship sailing to Ft. Pickens in Pensacola with orders to start a war there. If it hadn't happened in Charleston, it was going to happen in Pensacola.
The South was paying 3/4ths of all Federal revenues and more than that, an independent South was a grave threat to the financial interests of Lincoln's backers. There was going to be a war because it was the only way the Crony Capitalists backing Lincoln were going to be able to come out of the thing with their assets.
But too many Southerners thought they were Napoleon, Genghis and Alexander in overalls, and they wanted war.
Why would they want war? With Independence they achieved an immediate 100 million dollars per year boost in income due to the vast bulk of New York trade shifting to the South.
You may not get this, but virtually all of the export shipping from the US was carrying Southern products. The South accounted for 3/4ths of all the export revenue the nation earned, and it was only because of oppressive and jiggered laws that the return trade went through New York.
Independence meant that the South could ship product to Europe and the return imports would come back directly to Southern ports instead of going through the Federal tax collection and middlemen in New York.
The South was going to make a *LOT* of extra money from being independent, but of course the New York power brokers were going to lose a huge amount of money in the process.
That's why there was a war. One way or the other, the Crony Capitalists in collusion with Washington DC was going to have a war they badly needed to stop the South from becoming economically independent of their control.
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.