Germany is techincally a "Federation of States" many of which were independent up until the Prussians forced a unification. We should allow them to split up into a whole bunch of warring factions? Cause that sounds like a great recipe for peace to have a major nation plum in the middle of Europe.
Fine, secede. We'll be sending in troops to occupy Federal property, and the Interstate Highways we built. We'll also be confiscating your currency, as it's United States currency. Enjoy converting everybody's life savings into pesos.
Lololol.. read the economic history of the last time Texas secceeded.....
Ya'll know why Texas doesn't fall of into the Gulf of Mexico?
Because Oklahoma sucks so much:mrgreen:
Its not a question of why should anyone want to leave. Its a question of can they leave. Telling me I can't leave because its good for me, doesn't sound good to me.
Quantrill
Texas is a state, not a nation. By the laws of the Constitution, the state is under the federal government in terms of level of authority. Texas agreed to return to the union after their treasonous joining of the Confederacy.
If anything, Texas (and all the states of the southern Confederacy) should be on the record as being treasonous.
Furthermore, if the dollar crashed, are you saying it would behoove Texas to leave the union and the dollar and start their own currency? How would that help?
It was never settled by a question of 'right' or 'legal'. It was settled by war. Might made the right. And were a state to try it again, the same thing would occur. Your free. Just don't try to leave.
Germany is techincally a "Federation of States" many of which were independent up until the Prussians forced a unification. We should allow them to split up into a whole bunch of warring factions? Cause that sounds like a great recipe for peace to have a major nation plum in the middle of Europe.
Fine, secede. We'll be sending in troops to occupy Federal property, and the Interstate Highways we built. We'll also be confiscating your currency, as it's United States currency. Enjoy converting everybody's life savings into pesos.
No, they can't leave. It's a union, set up by the Constitution, to have the state subordinate to the federal government. Seceding is balking at that chain of authority. The only way people can revolt or a state can secede is "repeated, multiplied oppressions’ placing it beyond all doubt ‘that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties,’ could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government".
How would the union survive if every state was free to come and go when it benefits them?
Why do you say ethnic and religious now? You didn't say it before.
Quantrill
I simply don't see leaving the union as treason. Treason means to help a foreign government make war against or to help a foreign government overthrow one's government.
If Texas were to secede, it would not be helping any foreign government make war against any of the several states, or against the government of the union. It would simply be leaving them alone, and going its own way. It is a non-violent act. The only violence would be if the other states conquered and occupied it.
And again, I just don't understand why anyone, say, in Pennsylvania would feel that they have any authority to rule over the people of the state of Texas. But I guess that's just me; I'm not a control freak.
I'm saying they ought to be able to, not that they necessarily should.
sending troops into Texas would be one choice the federal government could make.. or they could decide to negotiate a mutually amendable break.
war is not the only option, but it certainly is an option.
I don't really understand the anti-secessionist habit of calling for war as the first option.
I was addressing Kosovo when I talked about that. You responded to that by bringing in the Civil War as an example of the government repressing an ethnic and religious minority in the United States. So I just want to know which ethnic or religious group that dominated the South but not the North was being oppressed.
It doesn't have to be war. I'd just want to make sure that we protect our assets while a "mutual break" can be worked out.
[/QUOTE]Most interpretations of treason see any attempt to bring down a legitimate government, without cause, as treason. Guy Fawkes was executed as a traitor, and he tried to kill the King. He didn't conspire with foreign governments. It doesn't require foreign help to be treasonous. All it takes is trying to disrupt the function of said government without just cause. Syria isn't in the midst of a treasonous wave of actions, because there are legitimate levels of oppression by the state.
So that's my point. What would be the point of calling it a union if all states are able to come and go when they please? We would have no foundation for a nation, just independent states that share borders but are otherwise 100% sovereign from each other.
Arbitrary secession is not only illegal under the Constitution, I doubt the Framers were dumb enough to think that a new nation could survive by letting each state go it's own way without some point of singular authority.
It's got nothing to do with "control" and everything to do with a working system. The Framers set about creating a nation that was a union of independent states under the limited guidance of the federal government. If they wanted a free state sh!tshow, why did they even bother creating the federal government?
I'm saying they ought to be able to, not that they necessarily should.
The Southern states were being oppressed. They consisted of the Southern white people.
Quantrill
Let me pose a hypothetical question...
IF a large majority of Texans (or whatever state, really) decided they didn't want to be part of the USA anymore....
... what is your moral justification for making them stay? And could this justification also be used to prevent someone as an individual from leaving the US and renouncing their citizenship, but taking their assets with them?
I'll be interested in the answers to this...
Ha! The slaves weren't oppressed, it was the white people who owned slaves! They were the ones being oppressed!
Revisionism, anyone?
And the crickets say.... chirp.... chirp.... chirp....
...as nobody wants to take that one on apparently....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?