Texas Gets Required 25k signatures to petition to secede

[jimnyc]

And Louisiana is right behind them, and then 19 other states.


The petition to let Texas secede from the U.S. to be reviewed by the White HouseWell, Texas, you have done it.

As of 3:40 p.m. ET, more than 25,000 Texans have already signed the petition on The White House website to let Texas peacefully secede from United States of America and “create its own NEW government.”

The petition, created on Nov. 9, argues for secession, stating:

http://i.imgur.com/qbwCm.jpg

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/the-petition-to-let-texas-secede-from-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/

AND

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/

[KitchenKitten99]

I have most of my dad's side that live down there, mostly in Dallas suburbs, Tool, and the eastern parts of the state. If things don't really improve here in MN... we might end up down there anyway.

At least 7 of those 25k+ signatures are from my family.

[fj1200]

Sounds like fun. How's about we just re-ratify the Constitution up to at least the BOR. Excluding especially the 17th A.

[jimnyc]

Sounds like fun. How's about we just re-ratify the Constitution up to at least the BOR. Excluding especially the 17th A.

I think any state that can gather enough support, and have a justifiable legal reasoning, should be allowed to do so, or at least have it presented and voted upon. I don't claim to be a historian or constitutional scholar, but if this is what it takes for a state to completely protect itself, so be it. The problem I acknowledge, is where does it end, and what if future citizens want to be a part of the US. Of course we don't want a merry go round of states in and out, but I think the option should be available.

[gabosaurus]

If Romney had won, and states wanted to leave the union, you would want to send in the military.

"If I can't get my way, I am going to take my state and go home!" :cheers2:

[jafar00]

Good luck to them. :dance:

[Gaffer]

As I see it these are petitions from individuals with lots of people signing up. They are not from officials of the states. And there is no media coverage of any of this so most people are unaware of the petitions. If these petitions actually show up in the halls of the state govts and are voted on there then the white house has something to worry about. Until then they will just say "go fuck yourself."

[cadet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/if-at-first-you-dont-secede--petition-the-white-house/2012/11/12/703e661c-2cff-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html

Here's more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/12/states-petition-obama-administration-to-secede/

Petitions have been filed for Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Holy cow, I'm going to say this once, i saw civil war happening two years ago with the new election.
Let's see how this pans out...

[Kathianne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/if-at-first-you-dont-secede--petition-the-white-house/2012/11/12/703e661c-2cff-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_blog.html

Here's more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/12/states-petition-obama-administration-to-secede/


Holy cow, I'm going to say this once, i saw civil war happening two years ago with the new election.
Let's see how this pans out...

Last I heard over 20 states have petitions of such in their names. Still doesn't address the facts that this was settled with quite a bloody war, in 1865.

[mundame]

Holy cow, I'm going to say this once, i saw civil war happening two years ago with the new election.
Let's see how this pans out...



Sure, we are SO overdue for a split-up, historically. This large a land-mass staying this long, since the last Civil War, without a split-off? I can't think of another example even close.

I was thinking that the blue chunks on the left coast and the other left coast and in the north middle would break off as sub-states, leaving the very large flyover-zone that is pretty much all culturally similar, the red states. All the welfare types could go to New England and Michigan and Washington State and so on, and leave the productive areas of the country unburdened by them. They might have to be encouraged with no welfare available except in the blue nationstates.

[jafar00]

Last I heard over 20 states have petitions of such in their names. Still doesn't address the facts that this was settled with quite a bloody war, in 1865.

From some of the extremist nonsense I've been hearing especially from the conservative voters after a bitter election defeat, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them try to restart the civil war.

[mundame]

As I see it these are petitions from individuals with lots of people signing up. They are not from officials of the states. And there is no media coverage of any of this so most people are unaware of the petitions. If these petitions actually show up in the halls of the state govts and are voted on there then the white house has something to worry about. Until then they will just say "go fuck yourself."


True..........but it's not really a good sign, is it?

You can't imagine a lot of people doing this in 1999.

We finally gave up on flying a flag in our yard; we had put up a 20-ft flagpole after 9/11, but the way things are going, we brought it in before the hurricane and I don't think it's going out again. People are giving up on the USA and that isn't something that goes nowhere, in the end. It develops and continues, when people lose faith. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had 19 ethnic groups, all very PC, lots of affirmative action and bilingualism and so on and on --------- it fell apart, quite suddenly, into several pieces. And that was the end of that empire, forever.

[cadet]

From some of the extremist nonsense I've been hearing especially from the conservative voters after a bitter election defeat, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them try to restart the civil war.

This kind of stuff does happen, just a projected outlook, the red states are the ones that are quite a bit more economically sound. So the blue ones would go downhill fast. Plus we have most of the food... riots in the cities...

Plus, despite what most people say, we're not "flyover" states. We have quite a bit of important stuff. And alot of the best colleges.

If this happens... I might be out of the job...

[mundame]

If this happens... I might be out of the job...

Oh, no ----- you'd just have a different flag.

[Kathianne]

Oh, no ----- you'd just have a different flag.

No big deal with that, I'm guessing you don't care about that.

[cadet]

No big deal with that, I'm guessing you don't care about that.

... What are you trying to say? I enjoy shooting people? I'm just going in to shoot? (I'm going for medivac, so i can SAVE people, not shoot them)
and, honstly, i might not care. A more freedom based country to fight for, and I'm doing it for the PEOPLE, not the GOV'T.

[Kathianne]

... What are you trying to say? I enjoy shooting people? I'm just going in to shoot? (I'm going for medivac, so i can SAVE people, not shoot them)
and, honstly, i might not care. A more freedom based country to fight for, and I'm doing it for the PEOPLE, not the GOV'T.

Not at all. I was referring to Mundame and her last post.

[Kathianne]

... What are you trying to say? I enjoy shooting people? I'm just going in to shoot? (I'm going for medivac, so i can SAVE people, not shoot them)
and, honstly, i might not care. A more freedom based country to fight for, and I'm doing it for the PEOPLE, not the GOV'T.

I can respect that, but if that is how you feel, please don't take an oath to the current country.

[KarlMarx]

From some of the extremist nonsense I've been hearing especially from the conservative voters after a bitter election defeat, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them try to restart the civil war.

Strange how the extremists are only on one side of the political argument.... at least in some people's minds

I think the petitions are more a symbolic gesture than a real desire to secede

But, if someone fires on Fort Sumter, I'm gonna get my musket and kiss Miss Scarlet goodbye

[Abbey Marie]

Bet you that border would get sealed up fast.

[aboutime]

I can respect that, but if that is how you feel, please don't take an oath to the current country.


Kathianne. Have no fear. Those in uniform around him will easily sort out whatever his ulterior motives might be.

They generally are smart enough to take care of those who think they can FOOL someone.

Sounds like the OATH isn't quite as serious as cadet would like us to think if what he said is true.

[aboutime]

Strange how the extremists are only on one side of the political argument.... at least in some people's minds

I think the petitions are more a symbolic gesture than a real desire to secede

But, if someone fires on Fort Sumter, I'm gonna get my musket and kiss Miss Scarlet goodbye


KarlMarx. What I find EVEN MORE STRANGE. Is how someone like jafar has the audacity to come here to school us about Extremists.

One of those cases of the "Pot calling the Kettle Black?"

[DragonStryk72]

Kathianne. Have no fear. Those in uniform around him will easily sort out whatever his ulterior motives might be.

They generally are smart enough to take care of those who think they can FOOL someone.

Sounds like the OATH isn't quite as serious as cadet would like us to think if what he said is true.

Actually, there's nothing in the Oath saying that he has to side with the US in such a conflict. If he believes that the US government has become a threat, then he is entirely in the spirit of the Oath to oppose that threat, though it is a domestic one.

Now, his *contract* on the other hand...

[mundame]

Actually, there's nothing in the Oath saying that he has to side with the US in such a conflict. If he believes that the US government has become a threat, then he is entirely in the spirit of the Oath to oppose that threat, though it is a domestic one.


The question would be, what U.S.? Once the country splits up, which side IS the USA? Neither, you could say. One side (like the Union in the War Between the States) would SAY it is the "real" USA, but if the territory is no longer intact, it isn't, really. In the S.M. Stirling alternate histories where this happens, the state calling itself the United States is limited to three states in the middle northwest, IIRC.

Most sci-fis for fifty years have assumed in a breakup California would become an independent Republic, it's so large. But the whole West Coast is blue, so they could agglomerate as a coastal state.

[KarlMarx]

One
Bad
Atrocious
Mistake
AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Welcome to the worst 4 years of your life

[avatar4321]

It's a disturbing trend.

[Trinity]

You know what I find really amazing about this whole thing is my 16 year old was the one who told me about it last night....

I did a search and couldn't find any info on it...I told him I would look into it more today and sure enough he was right. I am pulling it up left and right now.....

Then I find this on his facebook page.....:coffee:


These are all high school kids, last names removed.

4051

[revelarts]

I've followed secession activist for a for a while now it's just frustrating to see the movement get a boost after a moderated dems beats a moderate R in one election. there's practically no difference in the situation today as 4 weeks ago and (yes i'm saying it again) Romney wasn't much different.
So i'm not sure what folks are so concerned about now that wasn't a problem 5 weeks ago, or 8 years ago.

I'd really like to hear the motives of those who are jumping on the secession band wagon now.


Last I heard over 20 states have petitions of such in their names. Still doesn't address the facts that this was settled with quite a bloody war, in 1865.
Settled? You've read many of the civil war post here and heard the civil war revisions talk generally. It's not settled. the war was won, sure. but the debate, sadly, continues on many fronts.

But this seems a bit different. Its not north south and slavery that's the issue.
And the legal issue of the right to secede wasn't settled or ever codified in any new laws or amendments that cleared up the questions or closed the legal windows. Lincoln just used force to say that secession wasn't an option.




I can respect that, but if that is how you feel, please don't take an oath to the current country.

the Oath is to the Constitution, defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. (almost wrote enemas). If the President or series or presidents break THEIR constitutional oaths regularly, if Congress break THEIR constitutional oaths regularly, what's a soldier to do? Keep his oath right? Disobey illegal orders?
What's a Judge to do? What's a citizen to do? What's a state to do?

not settled at all
And a quick reading to the declaration of Independence should put to rest any idea that any people have to legally stay under any certain form of gov't.

[mundame]

I've followed secession activist for a for a while now it's just frustrating to see the movement get a boost after a moderated dems beats a moderate R in one election. there's practically no difference in the situation today as 4 weeks ago and (yes i'm saying it again) Romney wasn't much different.
So i'm not sure what folks are so concerned about now that wasn't a problem 5 weeks ago, or 8 years ago.

I'd really like to hear the motives of those who are jumping on the secession band wagon now.


Settled? You've read many of the civil war post here and heard the civil war revisions talk generally. It's not settled. the war was won, sure. but the debate continues on many fronts.

But this seems a bit different. Its not north south and slavery that's the issue.
And the legal issue of the right to secede wasn't settled or ever codified in any new laws or amendments that cleared up the questions and legal windows. Lincoln just used force to say that secession wasn't an option.




the Oath is to the Constitution, defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. (almost wrote enemas). If the President or series or presidents break THEIR constitutional oaths regularly, if Congress break THEIR constitutional oaths regularly, what's a soldier to do? Keep his oath right? Disobey illegal orders?
What's a Judge to do? What's a citizen to do? What's a state to do?

not settled at all


Good post. I see you understand about rules, that they work until they don't, that's all.



i'm not sure what folks are so concerned about now that wasn't a problem 5 weeks ago, or 8 years ago.
I'd really like to hear the motives of those who are jumping on the secession band wagon now.


I don't think it's a question of jumping "now" so much as the situation developing --- basically since 9/11, maybe a little before, but it's getting worse and worse and worse, a huge cultural divide. With major hatred between the two sides.

The last time this happened, it DID result in a Great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation...can long endure.

Well, they don't long endure, as a rule, as Lincoln understood. And America has lasted so long in historical times! I can hardly believe we are still together; it's unnatural, really.

It's not that everyone is suddenly interested in secession, it's just that it takes several years for this sort of thing to develop; it always takes 10 or 15 years. Everyone in Europe knew German militarism would result in a Great War! But except for several little warning crises, nothing-nothing-nothing for 10-15 years ------- until the weekend of August 4, 1914, kerblam.

Same deal with the Russian Revolution. Lots and lots of warning, smaller crises, almost-happenings --- and then in October 1917, kerblam.

When it happens, kiddoes, it will be SO FAST --- like Fort Sumter. Three days, not three weeks.

[fj1200]

This kind of stuff does happen, just a projected outlook, the red states are the ones that are quite a bit more economically sound. So the blue ones would go downhill fast. Plus we have most of the food... riots in the cities...

Plus, despite what most people say, we're not "flyover" states. We have quite a bit of important stuff. And alot of the best colleges.

If this happens... I might be out of the job...

Don't get too wrapped up into that argument. Every state adds to the overall economy in significant ways even CA, which is beyond F'ed, has significant intellectual property advantages, biotech in MA, and even NY with their capital market advantages. Not to say that secession wouldn't be an effective way to reestablish the supremacy of the States.

[mundame]

I'm interested in your point, revelarts, that the Civil War isn't over yet.

No. It's a profound philosophical point propounded by James Carse in "Finite and Infinite Games" (a short and wonderful book) that no game is ever over until both sides agree it is.

The South has never agreed that the game is over, so it isn't, that's all. And once there is secession and revolution again, as there always is forever everywhere, the South will certainly rise again and secede again as part of the rebellion. I think we all realize that. They won't be starting a new game: they'll just be continuing the last game, with an intermission.

That's what people did in the Hundred Years war --- long intermissions. And the 1914--1945 war that had a 19 year intermission, but since they had never settled the issue in 1918, it simply continued for the original reasons: Germany still wanted to rule Europe.

An Armistice didn't persuade them the game was over. Allies totally destroying German cities and Russians raping all the women in 1945 did finally persuade them that they couldn't win.

Though we have kept troops stationed there all these decades just in case.

[tailfins]

I have most of my dad's side that live down there, mostly in Dallas suburbs, Tool, and the eastern parts of the state. If things don't really improve here in MN... we might end up down there anyway.

At least 7 of those 25k+ signatures are from my family.

I thought Minnesota was in pretty good shape economically. Your post is confusing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm interested in your point, revelarts, that the Civil War isn't over yet.

No. It's a profound philosophical point propounded by James Carse in "Finite and Infinite Games" (a short and wonderful book) that no game is ever over until both sides agree it is.

The South has never agreed that the game is over, so it isn't, that's all. And once there is secession and revolution again, as there always is forever everywhere, the South will certainly rise again and secede again as part of the rebellion. I think we all realize that. They won't be starting a new game: they'll just be continuing the last game, with an intermission.

That's what people did in the Hundred Years war --- long intermissions. And the 1914--1945 war that had a 19 year intermission, but since they had never settled the issue in 1918, it simply continued for the original reasons: Germany still wanted to rule Europe.

An Armistice didn't persuade them the game was over. Allies totally destroying German cities and Russians raping all the women in 1945 did finally persuade them that they couldn't win.

Though we have kept troops stationed there all these decades just in case.

I think General R.E. Lee would disagree with you there...
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/appomatx.htm

[mundame]

I think General R.E. Lee would disagree with you there...
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/appomatx.htm


The game was certainly up for poor ol' Robert E.


But the South Will Rise Again.

[Gaffer]

The thing to watch for is when governors and legislatures start calling for succession. That's when it gets real. Individuals posting petitions means nothing. They need the full backing of a state and states need the backing and cooperation of other states.


A civil war today would be much different than the 1860's. For one the manufacturing and economic centers would be located in the succeeding states. As is the food production. But the rebel states would have to clear the leeches and libs out of the cities within their states to properly secure themselves.


I don't think the country would be divided for long. The blue states cannot support themselves for long and would be absorbed back into the new union. Provided, of course, there's not foreign intervention. Lincoln's emancipation act was primarily to keep England out of the war. I don't think the current govt would hesitate to bring in foreign troops to quell a rebellion.

There's always the possibility of peaceful succession, where the states form a new country or countries and the feds do nothing about it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If Romney had won, and states wanted to leave the union, you would want to send in the military.

"If I can't get my way, I am going to take my state and go home!" :cheers2:

My God, you are clueless and dumb as a box of rocks. The states have the right to leave the Union. You live in your liberal fantasy world while you spout off your ignorance here.
YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU HAVE HELPED DESTROY THIS NATION. Blind, ignorant and lazy is no way to go through life but you seem to enjoy it..
If Texas leaves Im going there and if forced I would fight. Unlike many I simply do not abandone my principles. Wheras people like you simply have none, at least none that count for anything worthwhile..-Tyr

[mundame]

The thing to watch for is when governors and legislatures start calling for succession. That's when it gets real. Individuals posting petitions means nothing. They need the full backing of a state and states need the backing and cooperation of other states.



Sure, I agree --- high officials talking it up is when things start getting interesting. That was the case last time.

However, rebellions always begin with the "little people" protesting and writing like is going on now. The big guys never move till they know they have the support of the people, not unless they are fools.

Reminds me of Edward, Duke of York. Henry VI was impaired...retarded or schizophrenic and getting worse, no question. But Edward, whose claim to the throne was BETTER than Henry VI, if anything, went to Ireland and minded his own business....until a big rebellion in Kent, when the leaders kept sort of using his name in their organizing. All the leaders were killed and the rebellion put down by the King's forces...but guess who came back from Ireland on the hop? And started the War of the Roses. York's son became king, Edward IV.

I think that's how it works. The little people move and write and speak and a movement grows, and when they think they have enough support, the Big Guys, the Strongmen, move very, very fast and take over the place.

[Gaffer]

Sure, I agree --- high officials talking it up is when things start getting interesting. That was the case last time.

However, rebellions always begin with the "little people" protesting and writing like is going on now. The big guys never move till they know they have the support of the people, not unless they are fools.

Reminds me of Edward, Duke of York. Henry VI was impaired...retarded or schizophrenic and getting worse, no question. But Edward, whose claim to the throne was BETTER than Henry VI, if anything, went to Ireland and minded his own business....until a big rebellion in Kent, when the leaders kept sort of using his name in their organizing. All the leaders were killed and the rebellion put down by the King's forces...but guess who came back from Ireland on the hop? And started the War of the Roses. York's son became king, Edward IV.

I think that's how it works. The little people move and write and speak and a movement grows, and when they think they have enough support, the Big Guys, the Strongmen, move very, very fast and take over the place.

That's exactly right. Which is why I said watch for the governors and legislators to start saying something. The little guys will be brushed off as an annoyance. When the big guys step up things will get serious.

[DragonStryk72]

The question would be, what U.S.? Once the country splits up, which side IS the USA? Neither, you could say. One side (like the Union in the War Between the States) would SAY it is the "real" USA, but if the territory is no longer intact, it isn't, really. In the S.M. Stirling alternate histories where this happens, the state calling itself the United States is limited to three states in the middle northwest, IIRC.

Most sci-fis for fifty years have assumed in a breakup California would become an independent Republic, it's so large. But the whole West Coast is blue, so they could agglomerate as a coastal state.

Actually, that might not be the case on the West Coast. In Oregon, for example, only two areas voted for Obama, those being Portland and Salem, while the rest of the state went red. Northern California? Same basic thing. Most of Ohio land-wise went Romney.

The central piece this goes around is that half the country at least doesn't feel like they're being represented anymore, that their vote doesn't count... and they've got a point. Our elections have become a horse race, where we bet on who we think is going to win, and the vast majority only choose from the two frontrunners for the race.

If something doesn't change soon, then we're going to be in real trouble real fast. This feeling has been building up for over a decade, and our "leaders" are doing nothing but exacerbating the problem.

[revelarts]

So Mundane what exactly would the south be rising too.

I think you know where i stand on most issues. I'm confused as to what you'd want the gov't of the south (or other states) to look like, different from what we've got. with this sudden interest in secession. I've pointed out that the only difference in the confederate constitution were it's slavery provisions. What be different now?

What the big differences R v D today? slavery was a pretty clear point of contention. fascism v democracy was clear as well but Hitler was voted in up to a point. even so it was still pretty clear.
Whats the real rub now? Would the south attack Iran, end the fed, stop global warming crapola, end the TSA, not jion the U.N., no tariffs on china big tariffs on China? I just don't see any specific line in the sand. becuase it's not like the constitution is brought up as a reason for much of anything anymore. And Social issues, forgetaboutit, people are ready to throw those notions under the bus for a "WIN" politically. Seem people are concerned about money and faux security issues. But secession won't fix either of those issues so I'm just drawing a blank as to what exactly secession means for some folks or as you say "the south".

[mundame]

The central piece this goes around is that half the country at least doesn't feel like they're being represented anymore, that their vote doesn't count... and they've got a point. Our elections have become a horse race, where we bet on who we think is going to win, and the vast majority only choose from the two frontrunners for the race.

If something doesn't change soon, then we're going to be in real trouble real fast. This feeling has been building up for over a decade, and our "leaders" are doing nothing but exacerbating the problem.



A decade? 5 to 15 years is really the usual lead-up time to a Big Split-Up. The French Revolution, for instance. WWI. The American Civil War. Well, all of them, actually.

This country is so deeply split that it is impossible for one leader to represent both sides. Impossible.

Therefore I suspect that there will eventually be two countries and two leaders. Then the welfare types can go north, where no doubt they'll be richly supported by white liberals, ha-ha, and the rest of us can get on with life. I'd like to see that, anyway.

Probably it would be a lot more complicated and violent, however.

[mundame]

So Mundane what exactly would the south be rising too.

I think you know where i stand on most issues. I'm confused as to what you'd want the gov't of the south (or other states) to look like, different from what we've got. with this sudden interest in secession. I've pointed out that the only difference in the confederate constitution were it's slavery provisions. What be different now?

What the big differences R v D today? slavery was a pretty clear point of contention. fascism v democracy was clear as well but Hitler was voted in up to a point. even so it was still pretty clear.
Whats the real rub now? Would the south attack Iran, end the fed, stop global warming crapola, end the TSA, not jion the U.N., no tariffs on china big tariffs on China? I just don't see any specific line in the sand. becuase it's not like the constitution is brought up as a reason for much of anything anymore. And Social issues, forgetaboutit, people are ready to throw those notions under the bus for a "WIN" politically. Seem people are concerned about money and faux security issues. But secession won't fix either of those issues so I'm just drawing a blank as to what exactly secession means for some folks or as you say "the south".

Getting people realigned, homogeneous societies. They used to believe in that in WWI --- nations were formed to contain similar people. All the PC ethnic mixing of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for instance, was frowned upon. Well, it doesn't work now, either.

Let the takers go with the Liberals up north and the makers stay in the South and Midwest, that's pretty much what everyone wants, I think.

[revelarts]

Getting people realigned, homogeneous societies. They used to believe in that in WWI --- nations were formed to contain similar people. All the PC ethnic mixing of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for instance, was frowned upon. Well, it doesn't work now, either.

Let the takers go with the Liberals up north and the makers stay in the South and Midwest, that's pretty much what everyone wants, I think.

" ...people realigned, homogeneous societies... All the PC ethnic mixing... doesn't work now either... ... "

I see...

[mundame]

Well, you did ask.

I take it that's you saying you don't agree, in some sense?

[revelarts]

Well, you did ask.

I take it that's you saying you don't agree, in some sense?

I appreciate your candor.
And your correct, i don't agree.
The "ethnic" theories of WWI or II era Europe or America are not models i think we should be using to move the south or any part of the country forward Mundame, to put it mildly.

[mundame]

The "ethnic" theories of WWI or II era Europe or America are not models i think we should be using to move the south or any part of the country forward Mundame, to put it mildly.


I see.

Well, you had asked what the point of secession was, what it was FOR, and I thought that was quite a good question! Obviously people want something very different from what is going on now or they wouldn't be talking up secession, and there is a LOT of talk of secession all over the Internet now.

In fact, people wanting homogeneous nationstates is the usual and normal goal of secession movements going on everywhere. The Belgians want to split into Flemish and Walloons, the Scots want to be free of the English again as usual, the Quebeçois want to be French all by themselves. This is normal. And it's what Americans who want secession want, cultural consistency, not this unholy takers and makers and invaders stew we have now. People who want to live with those kind of people can go one way, the rest of us will go the other. That's the fantasy, anyway.

[revelarts]

So you think most folks here in the U.S. are signing these patitions with that idea in mind?
Or some large percentage them?

[mundame]

So you think most folks here in the U.S. are signing these patitions with that idea in mind?
Or some large percentage them?

Yes?

What else?

Secession is sort of a big step; people must have a motive to advocate it, a goal in mind for a different kind of country they want to live in.

[revelarts]

Yes?

What else?

Secession is sort of a big step; people must have a motive to advocate it, a goal in mind for a different kind of country they want to live in.

Ok, I'd like to think that your wrong about the signers but I'm beginning to suspect you might be have a point.
And I'd like to think that your just stringing me along here.
But we're not in the humor thread this time around.

[cadet]

.....What the big differences R v D today? slavery was a pretty clear point of contention.....

Just throwing in my two cents worth, the civil war wasn't about slavery.

[Abbey Marie]

Heard it's up to 60,000

[revelarts]

Just throwing in my two cents worth, the civil war wasn't about slavery.
so why did the south secede from the union... which is (secession) what started the war?

[glockmail]

Just throwing in my two cents worth, the civil war wasn't about slavery. That was one of the major issues. But the most important issue was the feds usurping the Constitution, which is exactly why people are signing these petitions now.

[cadet]

so why did the south secede from the union... which is (secession) what started the war?

More or less, state vs. fed rights. But also the election of Lincoln. (and interestingly enough, the invention of the cotton gin)

The emancipation proclamation (abolishing slavery) act wasn't until we were IN the war, and that was only because Lincoln was told it'd get a few more of the states on his side.

[revelarts]

More or less, state vs. fed rights. But also the election of Lincoln. (and interestingly enough, the invention of the cotton gin)

The emancipation proclamation (abolishing slavery) act wasn't until we were IN the war, and that was only because Lincoln was told it'd get a few more of the states on his side.

Lincoln was elected and the south didn't like it because they felt he was pro north/abolitionist.
He wasn't a full on abolitionist but he was close enough for southern taste.
I've quote at least 3 times over the yrs here the speech of Jefferson Davis where we announced to the U.S. congress the REASON -singular- for the secession of Mississippi and other states, slavery. And I've quoted the bits of the Confederate Constitution that are different from the U.S. Constitution. They all have to do with negro slavery.

Interestingly enough Cotton Gin is never mentioned.

All of the other issues people like to bring up are interesting but not the hub of the wheel. Out of the Mouth the President of the Confederacy and the Founding doc of the Confederacy , It's constitution we see unambiguously what was really important to them.
it's a whitewash to pretend otherwise.

[cadet]

Lincoln was elected and the south didn't like it because they felt he was pro north/abolitionist.
He wasn't a full on abolitionist but he was close enough for southern taste.
I've quote at least 3 times over the yrs here the speech of Jefferson Davis where we announced to the U.S. congress the REASON -singular- for the secession of Mississippi and other states, slavery. And I've quoted the bits of the Confederate Constitution that are different from the U.S. Constitution. They all have to do with negro slavery.

Interestingly enough Cotton Gin is never mentioned.

All of the other issues people like to bring up are interesting but not the hub of the wheel. Out of the Mouth the President of the Confederacy and the Founding doc of the Confederacy , It's constitution we see unambiguously what was really important to them.
it's a whitewash to pretend otherwise.

April 12th 1861, civil war starts.
Jan 1st, 1863, slavery abolished.

[revelarts]

That was one of the major issues. But the most important issue was the feds usurping the Constitution, which is exactly why people are signing these petitions now.
Romney said several times where he thought it was OK to skirt the Constitution for the good of the country and Continue Obama's and Bush's unconstitutional policies. So where was the concern for the constitution and the petition signing after he won the primaries?

If the reason now is the Constitution they would have/should have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. A much less drastic response than secession. But at the time impractical i guess?

[revelarts]

April 12th 1861, civil war starts.
Jan 1st, 1863, slavery abolished.


Jefferson Davis Farewell to congress January 21, 1861
" it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races...."

Confederate Constitution adopted on March 11, 1861
"...No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed..."

April 12th 1861, civil war starts.

[mundame]

Lincoln was elected and the south didn't like it because they felt he was pro north/abolitionist.
He wasn't a full on abolitionist but he was close enough for southern taste.
I've quote at least 3 times over the yrs here the speech of Jefferson Davis where we announced to the U.S. congress the REASON -singular- for the secession of Mississippi and other states, slavery. And I've quoted the bits of the Confederate Constitution that are different from the U.S. Constitution. They all have to do with negro slavery.

Interestingly enough Cotton Gin is never mentioned.

All of the other issues people like to bring up are interesting but not the hub of the wheel. Out of the Mouth the President of the Confederacy and the Founding doc of the Confederacy , It's constitution we see unambiguously what was really important to them.
it's a whitewash to pretend otherwise.


It's subtle, revelarts.

Slavery was why the South seceded, yes -- because they could see the Northern abolitionists were going to stop it.

But slavery was not the cause of the War; the cause of the War was secession! At the point half the country dropped off the edge of America, neither Lincoln nor anyone else in the Union cared anything about slavery; they completely forgot it for the next three years. At that point, it was losing half the country that mattered, and it was the NORTH that prosecuted the war, not the South (which was hoping it could get away with secession).

[mundame]

This issue is important because we would do well to remember it:

It will not be whatever drives us out of the union that will matter, anymore than it mattered in 1860 --- it will be the fact of dissolution of the nation and the reaction of the states left that didn't secede to that dissolution.

[logroller]

It's subtle, revelarts.

Slavery was why the South seceded, yes -- because they could see the Northern abolitionists were going to stop it.

But slavery was not the cause of the War; the cause of the War was secession!
Well, ok. Likewise, gravity was what caused the twin towers to fall, but that doesn't capture the true essence of the cause. Regardless, the lessons to learned from the civil war are strategic, not tactical.
For example, the supreme court found secession can be done legally. It would require a consensus among the many states (3/4 or 2/3, can't remember which, but its the same as adding a state) ...that and war of course, which if successful would require the remaining states conceding.... Slim though it may be, there's a chance of either. But if a supermajority of states agreed, it'd seem easier to change the federal law accordingly. Take the senate for example-- equal voice of each state, and its about 50/50 lib/con. War would require a great deal of foreign support, which I don't forsee given the dominance of our military(ESP. The navy).does anybody think there's a foreign power that would lend support (militarily) to a secessionist government w/in the borders of the US? WwIII anyone? Anyone? Doubtit.

[mundame]

does anybody think there's a foreign power that would lend support (militarily) to a secessionist government w/in the borders of the US? WwIII anyone? Anyone? Doubtit.


You don't think the Great Powers would be lining up to help split up the United States so they can become superior to North America again? Sure they would, IMO.

Would have last time, but the South proved too weak when the Confederacy lost the Port of New Orleans. France and Britain have probably been kicking themselves ever since that they didn't help the Confederacy weaken America so they could rule supreme in Europe -- and the world, forever. They'd jump at another chance to weaken America. Pretty much any power would --- Japan, China, Russia, England, France, Germany. Maybe even Brazil or Mexico.

I think if America started to split up, the rebels would get a LOT of help.

[logroller]

You don't think the Great Powers would be lining up to help split up the United States so they can become superior to North America again? Sure they would, IMO.Would have last time, but the South proved too weak when the Confederacy lost the Port of New Orleans. France and Britain have probably been kicking themselves ever since that they didn't help the Confederacy weaken America so they could rule supreme in Europe -- and the world, forever. They'd jump at another chance to weaken America. Pretty much any power would --- Japan, China, Russia, England, France, Germany. Maybe even Brazil or Mexico.
I think if America started to split up, the rebels would get a LOT of help.
i think the "great powers" are content letting America weaken itself. Talk of secession is music to their ears. Economically, the confederacy screwed themselves by creating an embargo on cotton. Plus the wheat harvest sucked in Europe and the union had a lot of grain. Economics are more a factor than military stronghold. Of course, losing a port (and barge transportation route) certainly played a part; but again, its an economic thing. Show me a country that stands to gain economically from the us entering a civil war?

[gabosaurus]

So how about we get back to the original subject of Texas submitting a petition to secede.

As a former independent republic, I was under the impression that Texas had retained a right to secede when it joined the U.S. Turns out I was wrong.
I was searching for information on this topic earlier and came across this very informative item in the Houston newspaper.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/texas-secession-fact-and-fiction/

[Noir]

So those who want to break away from the union are traitors, right?

Also, where do the military fit into all this?

[logroller]

So how about we get back to the original subject of Texas submitting a petition to secede.

As a former independent republic, I was under the impression that Texas had retained a right to secede when it joined the U.S. Turns out I was wrong.
I was searching for information on this topic earlier and came across this very informative item in the Houston newspaper.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/texas-secession-fact-and-fiction/

article 4, section 3 states "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Thats how Texas became a State, and the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v White (1869) that "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"; so the same consent mentioned in the US Constitution would need be attained in order to form a more perfect union. (that, or revolution)


So those who want to break away from the union are traitors, right?

Also, where do the military fit into all this?

18 USC § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Just wanting to leave isn't treasonous. A lighter example would be relinquishing one's citizenship-- that's not treasonous. Levying war, aid and comfort to the enemy... that's the threshold. Theres also insurrection or rebellion, seditious conspiracy, advocating the overthrow of the government-- all high crimes(18 USC, 2383-2385), but not likely to be levied against someone signing a petition-- it's the attempt to overthrow the government that gets one into hot water.
As to the military, if someone levies war against the US, who do you think the president calls-- ghostbusters?

[Kathianne]

i think the "great powers" are content letting America weaken itself. Talk of secession is music to their ears. Economically, the confederacy screwed themselves by creating an embargo on cotton. Plus the wheat harvest sucked in Europe and the union had a lot of grain. Economics are more a factor than military stronghold. Of course, losing a port (and barge transportation route) certainly played a part; but again, its an economic thing. Show me a country that stands to gain economically from the us entering a civil war?

What kept England and France from backing the Confederacy was simple and complex, The Emancipation Proclamation. Turned the war for Union to the War Abolishing Slavery. Tricky Abe finally listened to the Abolitionists, freeing the slaves of the Confederacy, which of course he didn't control, without freeing those in the border states at that time.

Without the Emancipation it's likely they would have become involved.

Anyone arguing that England or France today would want to help with a secession movement doesn't understand more recent history, geopolitics, or economics.

[jafar00]

Would they be forced to hand over their nukes? It could be messy.

[revelarts]

Well, ok. Likewise, gravity was what caused the twin towers to fall, but that doesn't capture the true essence of the cause. ...

thank you.

And As far a new war Goes. i find it hard to Imagine that Americans would be willing to send their kids or themselves to Texas or Alabama and shoot them to make them stay in the Union. That just seems beyond the pale of what, I'd hope, many Americans would go for. But who knows some people might put on a flag and claim others are traitors that should be shot etc... tortured too maybe. Some seem ready to justify the gov't' in any military action.
I pray not though.

[glockmail]

Romney said several times where he thought it was OK to skirt the Constitution for the good of the country and Continue Obama's and Bush's unconstitutional policies. So where was the concern for the constitution and the petition signing after he won the primaries?

If the reason now is the Constitution they would have/should have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. A much less drastic response than secession. But at the time impractical i guess?

People don't vote for Ron Paul because he's an isolationist and a whack job. Although I like a lot of his policies, changes to the system, even to real Constitutional principles, have to be made gradually. Some can't be made at all due to prior commitments.

[DragonStryk72]

So those who want to break away from the union are traitors, right?

Also, where do the military fit into all this?

Not really, actually. Secession is an actual legal process in this country that's been around since its founding.

As to the military, that's where it gets tricky. See, we take an Oath when we join to protect against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and it's not an Oath to the US government. Our contract, however, is. Meanwhile, military members very rarely end up stationed in their hometown, but a majority of the military comes from the states that are looking to secede, along with being the location of a disproportionate number of the military bases.

[revelarts]

People don't vote for Ron Paul because he's an isolationist and a whack job. Although I like a lot of his policies, changes to the system, even to real Constitutional principles, have to be made gradually. Some can't be made at all due to prior commitments.
isolationist:rolleyes:
And Texas will attack Iran if it secedes? and join the UN peace keeping forces in country X? and will send Military aid to Syria, and Egypt? I don't think so. What about the country of Louisiana? Are they going to be sending out much foreign aid or floating a Navy all over the world? probably not. Alabama gonna send troops to man military bases in Africa, or Asia or Germany? right. they might be isolationist then to, correct? Or maybe they'd just think they can't afford that stuff and it's not as important as we've made it out to be.


And Secession is real gradual compared to just electing a multiple term congressman FROM Texas?
And if changes to abide by the constitution "Can't be made" your assertion that the Constitution is the reason for secession is BS.

[revelarts]

Here's the wild scenario for the day.
Let's say that Texas peaceful secedes from the the U.S..
It's now a Country with a boarder of the U.S. and Mexico.
La Raza anyone. How many Mexican flags will fly over the Texas flag then? will English be the primary language there? Will you send family to Texas to defend it if it's Annexed by Mexico? They seceded they shoulda thought about that 1st huh?
What if the Mexican/Hispanic population of Texas VOTE to make Texas a part of Mexico?
Would you want to live there while Texans try to work out their immigration policies.
outta the frying pan and into the fire from that POV.

[DragonStryk72]

Here's the wild scenario for the day.
Let's say that Texas peaceful secedes from the the U.S..
It's now a Country with a boarder of the U.S. and Mexico.
La Raza anyone. How many Mexican flags will fly over the Texas flag then? will English be the primary language there? Will you send family to Texas to defend it if it's Annexed by Mexico? They seceded they shoulda thought about that 1st huh?
What if the Mexican/Hispanic population of Texas VOTE to make Texas a part of Mexico?

outta the frying pan and into the fire from that POV.

None. The Mexican government doesn't have it together enough right now to fight Texas. Mexico only really won before because they were better armed. You really think that remains true at this point?

Yes, why wouldn't it be? Even my friend, Sarah, who is Mexican, speaks English.

Why would it be Annexed by Mexico, which is having enough trouble holding together their government as is?

The Hispanic population and the non-hispanic population who vote NO outnumber them by leaps and bounds, especially since TX would start using Voter IDs, so none of the illegals could vote.

[revelarts]

None. The Mexican government doesn't have it together enough right now to fight Texas. Mexico only really won before because they were better armed. You really think that remains true at this point?

Yes, why wouldn't it be? Even my friend, Sarah, who is Mexican, speaks English.

Why would it be Annexed by Mexico, which is having enough trouble holding together their government as is?

The Hispanic population and the non-hispanic population who vote NO outnumber them by leaps and bounds, especially since TX would start using Voter IDs, so none of the illegals could vote.

That's the most positive view of it, interesting exercise though huh? the questions have to be addressed.

As far as Mexico being to weak to Annex re trouble holding together their own government, same could be said of the U.S. if Texas secedes. Are Mexican states are seceding?

And just playing devils advocate for a minute. If I were a Mexican El Presidenta and had a mind to violently Annex a free Texas I'd do it the day after the secession was ratified. If not the hour after. the Mexican Army would be rolling across the boarder with tanks and planes while Texans are playing with fireworks and dancing in the streets. The strike would take down/kill imprison/exile the Texas Gov't leaders in hours but free all dignitaries from foreign countries ASAP.
make a cool movie huh? Better than Zombie apolypse.

It's unlikely but, if i were an expansionist despot I might try that. But keeping the people of Texas Mexican would be the hard part. It'd take generations probably, if it could be done at all.

But mexican flags would fly over the Texas falg in a LOT of places i'd Guess.

[tailfins]

States whose active petitions have not yet reached the 25,000 signature threshold include Alaska (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-alaskans-free-and-open-election-decide-whether-or-not-alaska-should-secede-united-states/T7mz4lzx), Arkansas (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-arkansas-withdraw-united-states-and-create-its-own-new-government/k6LhPsBX), Arizona (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-arizona-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/GrZPNqcX), California (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-california-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Rfg4ZhhC), Colorado (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-colorado-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/lWDshfl3), Connecticut (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-connecticut-withdraw-united-states-america-create-its-own-new-government/qZD9wYmg), Delaware (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-delaware-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Mbz8QFQr), Hawaii (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-hawaii-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/kfvFZyfw), Idaho (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-idaho-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/wqKSjw5P), Illinois (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-illinois-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/3D1qh2hg), Indiana (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-indiana-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/51jYVZ5L), Iowa (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-iowa-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Yz60Zvtk), Kansas (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-kansas-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/k96nJrY6), Kentucky (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-kentucky-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/RskKYzB6), Maine (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-maine-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/JZv4N6HN), Maryland (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-maryland-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/qn9YZjMp), Massachusetts (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-massachusetts-withdraw-united-states-america-create-its-own-government/R9BMnHQs), Michigan (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-michigan-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/022SsMWp), Minnesota (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-minnesota-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/bzct9Ypl), Mississippi (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-mississippi-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-governmen/9M9rdL8n), Missouri (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-missouri-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Vd92R3YG), Montana (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-montana-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/l76dWhwN), Nebraska (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-nebraska-withdraw-united-states-and-create-its-own-new-government/Jf5xVXrS), Nevada (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-nevada-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/3ff8v0HR), New Hampshire (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/grant-state-new-hampshire-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/hdTc6HPn), New Jersey (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-new-jersey-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/RYvjgdDT), New Mexico (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-new-mexico-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/mzXG7MtY), New York (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-new-york-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/RSBkpCf9), North Dakota (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-north-dakota-withdraw-usa-and-create-its-own-new-government/lqPGbvVl), Ohio (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-peaceful-withdrawal-ohio-united-states-america-such-it-becomes-its-own-free-nation/xKLK11kk), Oklahoma (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-oklahoma-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Z0G2vNtF), Oregon (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-oregon-vote-and-leave-union-peacefully-and-remain-ally-nation/X3kWX8kF), Pennsylvania (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-pennsylvania-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/0d7vMsmb), Rhode Island (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-allow-state-rhode-island-secede-united-states-america-and-create-new-government/6Wfk18XN), South Carolina (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-sc-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/KL6qrls8), South Dakota (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-south-dakota-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/FDs7lQJZ), Utah (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-utah-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/8TlFpQS3), Vermont (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-vermont-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/79G0N1jt), Virginia (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-virginia-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/pBLTRmfR), Washington (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-washington-peacefully-withdraw-united-states-and-form-its-own-government/9XZNnRSB), West Virginia (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-west-virginia-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-govern/VkP6lCFT), Wisconsin (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-allow-state-wisconsin-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/421C1h6t) and Wyoming (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-wyoming-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/BLQnDS9w).

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/white-house-secede-petitions-reach-660000-signatures-50-state-participation/#ixzz2CD1AjEDe



I'm surprised New York hasn't reached the threshold. Places like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and the rest of upstate New York feel like they are being milked for the benefit of NYC.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's the most positive view of it, interesting exercise though huh? the questions have to be addressed.

As far as Mexico being to weak to Annex re trouble holding together their own government, same could be said of the U.S. if Texas secedes. Are Mexican states are seceding?

And just playing devils advocate for a minute. If I were a Mexican El Presidenta and had a mind to violently Annex a free Texas I'd do it the day after the secession was ratified. If not the hour after. the Mexican Army would be rolling across the boarder with tanks and planes while Texans are playing with fireworks and dancing in the streets. The strike would take down/kill imprison/exile the Texas Gov't leaders in hours but free all dignitaries from foreign countries ASAP.
make a cool movie huh? Better than Zombie apolypse.

It's unlikely but, if i were an expansionist despot I might try that. But keeping the people of Texas Mexican would be the hard part. It'd take generations probably, if it could be done at all.

But mexican flags would fly over the Texas falg in a LOT of places i'd Guess.

Are you kidding? Texas could invade and take over Mexico right now! The Texas National Guard could defeat Mexico in a week. Texas should leave the Union IMHO. One thing is for sure , I'd move there first week and fight to defend the new country as long as it seceded to uphold our Constitution and to counter the false government we have with obama the traitor! -Tyr

[cadet]

Here's the wild scenario for the day.
Let's say that Texas peaceful secedes from the the U.S..
It's now a Country with a boarder of the U.S. and Mexico.
La Raza anyone. How many Mexican flags will fly over the Texas flag then? will English be the primary language there? Will you send family to Texas to defend it if it's Annexed by Mexico? They seceded they shoulda thought about that 1st huh?
What if the Mexican/Hispanic population of Texas VOTE to make Texas a part of Mexico?
Would you want to live there while Texans try to work out their immigration policies.
outta the frying pan and into the fire from that POV.

Texas's border would be closed, quick... and without the restrictions uncle sam has put on the border control, i don't think they'd have any problems. And i see the use of deadly force on illegals as well. (or maybe just some tranquilizer and big vans for transport back)

Their immigration policies would turn into "Legally come here only" (dead simple)

[mundame]

So those who want to break away from the union are traitors, right?

Also, where do the military fit into all this?



Wherever they want to...................................

Traitors? not until we actually DO it, I think.

And not then either, if we can make it stick.

[DragonStryk72]

That's the most positive view of it, interesting exercise though huh? the questions have to be addressed.

As far as Mexico being to weak to Annex re trouble holding together their own government, same could be said of the U.S. if Texas secedes. Are Mexican states are seceding?

And just playing devils advocate for a minute. If I were a Mexican El Presidenta and had a mind to violently Annex a free Texas I'd do it the day after the secession was ratified. If not the hour after. the Mexican Army would be rolling across the boarder with tanks and planes while Texans are playing with fireworks and dancing in the streets. The strike would take down/kill imprison/exile the Texas Gov't leaders in hours but free all dignitaries from foreign countries ASAP.
make a cool movie huh? Better than Zombie apolypse.

It's unlikely but, if i were an expansionist despot I might try that. But keeping the people of Texas Mexican would be the hard part. It'd take generations probably, if it could be done at all.

But mexican flags would fly over the Texas falg in a LOT of places i'd Guess.

And second that army rolled out, the crime lords kill "El Presidenta", and the whole fight is moot, since they will not have to go back to resecure the capital that's just been sacked by a warlord.. War over.

[Kathianne]

All seem an exercise in sour grapes to me. The issue was settled in 1865, if any STATE wishes to go at it, my guess they'll find the same response. These 'petitions' though are individuals setting them up and individuals responding.

[tailfins]

All seem an exercise in sour grapes to me. The issue was settled in 1865, if any STATE wishes to go at it, my guess they'll find the same response. These 'petitions' though are individuals setting them up and individuals responding.

The petitions would make great mailing lists for fundraising letters for the TEA Party Express.

[Kathianne]

The petitions would make great mailing lists for fundraising letters for the TEA Party Express.

Somewhat only, most are more educated than these.

[glockmail]

isolationist:rolleyes:
And Texas will attack Iran if it secedes? and join the UN peace keeping forces in country X? and will send Military aid to Syria, and Egypt? I don't think so. What about the country of Louisiana? Are they going to be sending out much foreign aid or floating a Navy all over the world? probably not. Alabama gonna send troops to man military bases in Africa, or Asia or Germany? right. they might be isolationist then to, correct? Or maybe they'd just think they can't afford that stuff and it's not as important as we've made it out to be.


And Secession is real gradual compared to just electing a multiple term congressman FROM Texas?
And if changes to abide by the constitution "Can't be made" your assertion that the Constitution is the reason for secession is BS."Prior commitments" for example, are the US commitment to Israel. The Allied powers of WW2 made that commitment, and the US can't break it. If Texas broke from the US, then they have no such obligation.

[Robert A Whit]

All seem an exercise in sour grapes to me. The issue was settled in 1865, if any STATE wishes to go at it, my guess they'll find the same response. These 'petitions' though are individuals setting them up and individuals responding.

Actually, I maintain that 1865 only proved one thing. That the Feds intend to use FORCE and impose death on anybody or any state wanting to be free.

I don't doubt that Obama would invade states to get his way.

But to say it was settled ought to be found in the constitution rather than in the blood of the dead.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, I maintain that 1865 only proved one thing. That the Feds intend to use FORCE and impose death on anybody or any state wanting to be free.

I don't doubt that Obama would invade states to get his way.

But to say it was settled ought to be found in the constitution rather than in the blood of the dead.

STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT IF ATTACKED.
What gets me is these asshats that cheer obama's treason and subversion of our Constitution
want to use that very same Constitution to declare that we citizens do not have the right to leave the Union if our state choses to do so. Even if its to leave in order to get back to actually honoring that Constitution which the Federal government no longer does now that the alliance of liberals/leftists and dems have taken over and committed multiple cases of treason.. -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

When Obama started signing Executive Orders without Congress, there were bound to be repercussions. There are consequences to avoiding or disregarding the rule of law. Some of those include a trickle down of such disregard to the regular folk. This may be a snowball that keeps rolling.

[jimnyc]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday that secession was a “deeply American principle,” amid a growing number of people petitioning the White House to let their states secede from the U.S.

“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those ‘traitors’ became our country’s greatest patriots,” the former presidential candidate wrote in a post on his House website. “There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.”

He continued: “If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”

Since President Barack Obama was reelected earlier this month, a flurry of secession petitions from states were created — most notably from Texas, which with more than 115,000 signatures far exceeds the 25,000 signatures needed for an official White House response. Critics have said it’s disgruntled voters upset that former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost.

Paul wrote that secession must still be an option to be used as leverage to make sure the government doesn’t “encroach” on Americans’ liberties.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84058.html

[gabosaurus]

I am surprised that so many of you, having screamed and yelled constantly about others disregarding the Constitution, now endorse an action that would disregard the Constitution. :rolleyes:

And yes, the petitions are primarily the work of disgruntled voters upset that former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84058.html


The old man is right.. Obama will not see it that way. But then again obama is the leadman and instigator of the problem. Texas should just leave.. f-obama! -Tyr

[logroller]

Texas has seceded before. After being defeated, the Supreme Court issued this--

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Texas v White, 74 US 700 (1865)

So mention through petition there, does it? So unless Texas believes they can defeat the most powerful military the world has yet seen, or convince a supermajority of the state legislatures that their secession is in the best of the United States; what we have here is an exercise in mootness.