Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession

Page 1 of 13 [ 193 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,688
Location: Portland, Oregon

19 Sep 2014, 1:36 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/angr ... secession/


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 1:45 pm

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/angry-with-washington-1-in-4-americans-open-to-secession/

I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 125
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

19 Sep 2014, 2:23 pm

Secession TO what?


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,688
Location: Portland, Oregon

19 Sep 2014, 2:26 pm

1401b wrote:
Secession TO what?


That's a good question.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 2:34 pm

1401b wrote:
Secession TO what?

RawStory.com wrote:
The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found....

Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

19 Sep 2014, 3:31 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/angry-with-washington-1-in-4-americans-open-to-secession/

I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.


This right here. This right here is, basically, the solution to the entire problem.

The Civil War went down because one half of the country wanted to tell the other half of the country that it must structure its society and its economy in a way that was beneficial primarily to the first half, largely at the expense of the second. Sadly, slavery was just a drum to bang; other than a few pure-hearted abolitionists, Northerners only gave a crap for the fate of the African slave insofar as it would be more beneficial to the North to have them working as domestics and factory laborers at starvation wages. The Union Army wasn't interested in equality or emancipation-- it was just a convenient banner to wave. The Union Army was interested in hanging on to a huge swath of industrial and agricultural resources, and that's ALL.

The same deal is going down today. A handful of oligarchs are interested-- very interested-- in controlling the whole pie. I wish we could go back to having 50 sovereign states with a small federal authority to work out the stuff that we really all have to do together...

...but that isn't bloody likely to happen.

Secessionists-- and possibly federalists too-- can look forward to being neutralized by an awesome display of force.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 125
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

19 Sep 2014, 3:40 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
1401b wrote:
Secession TO what?

RawStory.com wrote:
The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found....

Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.

I understand what Secession means.
My question is TO what form of government?
If this form has failed then what form do they suggest?
If they want the same form of government then this form hasn't failed yet, maybe just needs the leadership rearranged.

Probably 25% of any group body would like things massively changed, especially if things are not currently going well for them.
Especially in this economy...


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


modernmax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2012
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,458
Location: Near Chicago

19 Sep 2014, 3:48 pm

Is this open to the idea of seccession or full on supporting and spreading it, and voting "Yes" when the time comes?


_________________
This is not a signature, I just make a line and write this under it every time I post.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

19 Sep 2014, 6:40 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
1401b wrote:
Secession TO what?

RawStory.com wrote:
The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found....

Apparently to the status of its own nation, at least temporarily. U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.


Madison wrote in a letter to Daniel Webster that unless a state were "seceding from intolerable oppression," which would be an exercise of the right of revolution, unilateral secession would be "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h3s14.html

He mentioned this with regards to the controversy over South Carolina's threatened secession during the Jackson Administration. He was opposed to South Carolina seceding then (as well as nullification), as made clear in his comments at the beginning of the linked letter to Daniel Webster.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

19 Sep 2014, 6:48 pm

Well, given that the 13 colonies weren't suffering under "intolerable oppression" when they left, that makes their seccession from the empire wrong.

Re. a "faith solemnly pledged", one generation cannot bind it's successors (see: Jefferson). That may have been valid during the early years, but it certainly isn't now, since no-one alive today bound themselves.

But all that is academic, and ignores that in practice today, it's generally considered right to secede if a majority favour it. Unless it damages US, Chinese, or Russian interests. Then the UN Security Council will block you.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

19 Sep 2014, 6:57 pm

BuyerBeware wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/angry-with-washington-1-in-4-americans-open-to-secession/

I understand their opinion, but we wouldn't need to consider secession if we returned to a federal system of 50 sovereign states, not a national system of a centralized authorities.


This right here. This right here is, basically, the solution to the entire problem.

The Civil War went down because one half of the country wanted to tell the other half of the country that it must structure its society and its economy in a way that was beneficial primarily to the first half, largely at the expense of the second. Sadly, slavery was just a drum to bang; other than a few pure-hearted abolitionists, Northerners only gave a crap for the fate of the African slave insofar as it would be more beneficial to the North to have them working as domestics and factory laborers at starvation wages. The Union Army wasn't interested in equality or emancipation-- it was just a convenient banner to wave. The Union Army was interested in hanging on to a huge swath of industrial and agricultural resources, and that's ALL.

The same deal is going down today. A handful of oligarchs are interested-- very interested-- in controlling the whole pie. I wish we could go back to having 50 sovereign states with a small federal authority to work out the stuff that we really all have to do together...

...but that isn't bloody likely to happen.

Secessionists-- and possibly federalists too-- can look forward to being neutralized by an awesome display of force.


If you read the secession ordinances as well as the Confederate Constitution, you can see slavery was a big part of the secession of those 11 states:

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinan ... ession.htm

This is a source that compares the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions side by side, the latter of which makes liberal mention of the term slavery, providing protections for the institution, prohibiting its abolition, etc.:

http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm

If you compare the two, you'll see that the Confederate Constitution did little to weaken the power of the federal government compared to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. it was actually a lot less protective of states' rights than commonly assumed), but did a lot to strengthen slavery.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

19 Sep 2014, 8:02 pm

beneficii wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
...U.S. Presidents Jefferson and Madison wrote quite strongly that states may do that.

Madison wrote in a letter to Daniel Webster that unless a state were "seceding from intolerable oppression," which would be an exercise of the right of revolution, unilateral secession would be "a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h3s14.html

He mentioned this with regards to the controversy over South Carolina's threatened secession during the Jackson Administration. He was opposed to South Carolina seceding then (as well as nullification), as made clear in his comments at the beginning of the linked letter to Daniel Webster.

That was in 1833. I am describing the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession ... ition_Acts about which "Thomas Jefferson, while sitting as Vice President of the United States in 1799, wrote to James Madison of his conviction in 'a reservation of th[ose] rights resulting to us from these palpable violations [the Alien and Sedition Acts]' and, if the federal government did not return to 'the true principles of our federal compact', [he was determined to] 'sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.'"


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

19 Sep 2014, 8:30 pm

let the confederate states GO, once and for all. the north will finally be free of its fundy yoke.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Sep 2014, 9:25 pm

/\ This is 2014 so it won't necessarily be a north and south thing.
Image


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

19 Sep 2014, 9:26 pm

I WANT to live in the united states of Canada. am already within its geographic boundaries.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

19 Sep 2014, 9:28 pm

Because we have become a nation of people who do not understand the concept of "united" and only care about themselves and their own interests. Unity requires a degree of sacrifice but we are a land of spoiled, self-indulgent me-ists.