Does anybody else think that ...

....maybe someday the contiguous 48 states of North America, will ever split up into a bunch of smaller countries or provinces, like Europe? Or, U.S.S.R? Would that be a good thing?

and here's why....


We all love Abe Lincoln, right?


Set the slaves free...
Emancipation Proclamation...
Gettysburg Address...
Good old honest abe?


Well, once he took a look at the situation during the civil war, he decided to go ahead and make one of those infamous executive decisions that often went against the constitution. Would you like to know what it was?






He made cessation from the Union of the United states Illegal. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the south shall not rise again, because it's illegal for them to do so!

So, Loki, why do you sound so bitter about this, you may ask.

Well, I'll tell you that If there were to be say, some sort of revolution, where people decided they were tired of living in the united states, the way that it works...they couldn't to dick about it.
How can you change a country when 'change it' isn't on the ballot?

That's what we've all failed to realize here. we've been duped into believing that we hold the power, when really we are standing here holding nothing but a crappy job. There's not ballot item for 'I vote we kick that motha #a out the white house'. There's not ballot item for "Stop looking for war in the middle east". There's not ballot item for "I move that this state be let out of the union, and allowed to make our own # up"

many of you think I'm ramblin here, which I am...to a certain extent...

But I think that it would be good for the us to have a good split again. sometimes, it's good to get some thing straightened out. Am I saying we need a revolution? probably not, but I think that the option should be there. Can't very well be a revolution if we can't secceed, nor get on national TV since our speech will be censored.

So, to answer your question, MarsUpial, no, nobody's going to secceed anytime soon.

I have heard of an animal known as a "peaceful coup de ta" or something, where lets say if 30,000 people or more can assemble themselves in a peaceful fasion, they
march on in to their state government buildings, and take control over them. I know the likelyhood of something like this successfully occurring is probably benign...but does can someone refer me to the right location in the constitution to locate the facts about what I am trying to say?

there's nothing like that in the constitution. It's a good Idea, but If it were something as little as that, the million man march would have wiped out the US government a long time ago.

you are correct loki..... the start of the'civil war' had nothing to do with freeing the slaves... what it did have to do with was that the south wanted to form its own country..which it legaly did. the north realized that they, the north, did not have the industrial or manufacturing base to not be dependant on the south for most of its needs. walla...the pres says you can't do that so we, the north, will invade to stop those malcontents and rebels. it was only after 1 or 2 years before good 'ol decided to 'free the slaves'.....sorta funny that slavery was legal in the north at the start of the war. also, when abe saw that he would not win 'the hearts and minds' of the south even though the southern army was almost destroyed.....what did he do..ordered the scorched earth policy to be carried out on the south........
i think that sometime in the future america will be divided into 3-5 separte countries...hopefully soon rather than later............the only question is when and what side will you be on............... (loads up another mag.......:mad

Loki, I agree with you that the States will remain intact. However, there not being an option to seceed, I would disagree with. America did just that in 1776. If the people want out they can make it happen, law or no law.

then please can someone refer me to the place within the constitution that talks about this topic? Or even within the STATES' consitutional documents? Thankyou

If 60,000 people decide to secede from any country then they are officially recognized by the UN and most countries in the world. American Law cannot make it illegal for people to secede law is only relevant to the people who are willing to follow it. Before I continue I will state that I am from the North but live in the South, neither side is correct on a lot of issues, but, I like the fact that the south was willing to stick it to the man. One of the things that most people who are uneducated in the US believe is the following: Abraham Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the South. Wrong, you could not be farther from the truth, This is also relevant to our discussion. What could the US or any other government do if a group of people or states who wanted to secede and then seceded� NOT A DAMN THING. Thanks Abe for freeing the slaves in the south� at this point they are not part of your country, you CANNOT free them since you do not have any control over them. The only thing that the US could do if a group decided to secede would be to invade them or blockade the supplies from entering or exiting the country. If the US invaded a NON hostile country, they would loose all of their allies. Back to the point, there is nothing they could do.

If you want to get religious, there was some discussion on the N.W.O. board about dividing the country into seven regions, much like what is mentioned in Revelations in the Bible. IF you read this into it then there is a possibility that the N.W.O. would be doing this, that is dividing up the US into groups of states that are individually divided.

The idea of a coup de tat, or a takeover of the government by the military, is covered in the second amendment of the US Constitution, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The debate is out now more than ever on what this really means, but the Supreme court has ruled many times over, that the tradition of the right to bear arms correlates to the ability of the people of the United States to subvert the federal government if it were to become corrupt to the point of tyrrany. Now, that is in the tradition of the revolutionary war, when, in fact, the goverment which exacted control over the people did infringe on personal freedoms such as the right to assemble to discuss redress of grievances. Which then led to incarceration without due process, unlawful/unwarranted search and seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment.

So you see, the bill of rights, for the most part relate directly to the tyrranical actions of the government that preceded the current one. They are in place as an assurance to the people that if these rights are infringed upon, the people would retain the legal right to usurp power from those who would oppress those rights.

Also, the first amendment allows for the peacable assembly of the people and redress of grievances, which could very well take the form of 30,000 individuals marching on the white house.

I think it's too bad we have separation at all. I wish the circumstances and the state of humanity allowed for there to be no law's at all. I think most humans are hell bent on paying people back for what wrong is done, the old eye for an eye policy. And the bad part is, people like that greatly out number people like me