It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Texas or any other states should or be allowed to secede from the United States?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Most of the red states produce very little GDP...



Texas is the second largest economy in the United States, and is the 13th largest economy in the world.



The economic output of the state of Texas was $1.224 trillion in 2008.

econpost.com...




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The one major problem I see is how to divide up the nuclear stockpile. I do not want to imagine a world where a very hard right religious theocratic style nation has a ton of nuclear weapons..so that in itself is a show stopper until we can elimiinate all weapons of mass destruction in America and sign a treaty of non-proliferation that both sides abide by...with the contingency that if either side violates it, they give up all rights as a nation and UN troops move in to secure the entire country without question. You build a nuke, you give up control completely.

So, ultimately...it will never happen. We like our big bombs and earth ending devices.

Not to mention the Johnson space center, dividing the assets will not be easy, but just as you said, the chasm is too deep, this has to be discussed.


Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


From what I have read in the Texas Constitution Texas never gave over power to the Federal Government, Texas had a Treaty, instead. And truthfully, any or all of the States can "secede" merely by nullifying Federal Law. It's that simple.

Should or should they not secede in your opinion, texas, arizona and others?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Ya...the whole free labor thing was part of southern success in the 19th century, and the next to slave labor of the very early 20th century.

So, I guess they will have to find a new slave class if they want to return to the good ole days. Perhaps make every single crime a massive offense requiring 20 years of slave labor...that should fix that issue. Will get a good revenue to the government by making slave trading a official federal trade, get your fields plowed and picked for next to nothing, voila...back to the southern good ole days.


You don't need anything that drastic, just cut wages across the board and tell people they are free to
take it or leave it. It will inevitably create a self serving system which is great until all the wealth is so consolidated everyone is severing the same master. The core of the southern idea has never changed,
appeal to pride, point to hard work, but don't you ever question the equity of the entire system built around you.
Brits had a similar dynamic built in the culture


Share cropping and adjusting rate mortgages, oh my


It is like a king sending out the people he starves to make him richer, they do not revolt, they march in line
and die for him even when they are all mistreated by him.
edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's not really necessary if they have an extremely profitable cash crop. Prisons can already provide the kind of forced labour that is necessary to cover labour shortages in the south. The majority of work could probably be done by citizens for fair wages. If we assume that a rural/agrarian revival takes place in an independent south, then living costs will decrease as well.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
...from the article posted in the op...
www.alternet.org...

What would it look like if all the conservatives formed a “utopia” in Texas


...lets stop right there and deal with the initial hypothesis first...

...what would it look like if conversatives tried to force their version of an utopia (otherwise known as a hell created by anal retentives) on REAL texans?..

...it'd purty much look like what you'd expect if a bunch of rattlesnakes slithered into any local honkytonk or icehouse... there'd be lots of yellin and cussin - and - then, purty quick, someone (probably quite a few someones) would start shootin - and - when the smoke cleared, someone would say "i heard they taste like chicken" - and - someone else would say "i'll start the fire" - and - someone else would say "i make up a batter thats to die for!" - and - someone else would say "we need more beer!" - and - someone would start pickin and singing - and - the others would join in or start dancin - and - the party would carry on...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Secession! What Would It Look Like If Red States Formed Their Own Country?

From me, the answer is yes. It's just my opinion, I don't know the details regarding the technicality or the legality of it, but the general principle is you shouldn't force a state to stay within a UNITED States if it's no longer wish to do so.


yes we can separate into states. Right know the way it is in usa according to the Constitution these states only formed a Unification of states, usa never became a actual country even though we americans and most the world refer to "united states" ( < there is the clue) of america as a country. Yes we need to separate into individual states with each state having its own small government. And a extremely small united states government..( im talking teeny tiny small) to oversee world issues are brought to each individual states government. Each state can have its own military,create their own taxes, schools, medical care. stock market each state would decide its future without the hand of greedy government taking control. I also think the wall street ticoons and elites need to go away just as the large government needs to end..the list is endless what each state could do. And the only reason the states havent separated so far in my opinion is, we are not completely sure if we are a union of states or a country...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Texas especially still has true americas. We are deep in our freedom pride, Texas can do it if the people stand behind the concept. Get the average person to see the benefits and yes texas can do it.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The Confederate States successfully and legally pulled out of the union.

That bastard Lincoln resorted to misterminology to justify a Northern aggression by calling the secession an "insurgency."

Look the word up. An insurgency is an armed attack on the government.

The South didn't do any such thing. They just said, "Screw You, We're Outta Here."

Mis-terminology.

If the Southern States reiterated those secessions today, there would be no armed assault. But if those states that secede adapted the original Bill of Rights as their Constitution - which this time would include blacks and women - almost all States would secede and join this new union.

Confederacy.

That is exactly what the Constitution had in mind. Not a strong Federal government.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Yes...However,Manifest Destiny says we The United States of America can then conquer it and take it back...So please....Go.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


The American Civil War first began when Confederate troops opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor....All Confederate Apologists Lie.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nivekronnoco
 

The South seceded. Including South Carolina.

That property was Southern property. Not US property.

They were ordered to get out, and ignored the orders. THEN they were fired on.

Sovereign territory.

Sovereign Southern territory.

Gee, it's really nice right now with the Federal Government, isn't it?

The very states that invaded the South? Growing rust buckets thanks to their government.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
If an operating state joined the union, then that state can quit the union. (Being an ordained Texan I know my fellow rednecks will absolutely agree with me on that point.)

Seriously, this could become a major point of contention and exactly why some of the New England states are starting to object. They saw themselves as part of a partnership, and now the basic rules of that union are consistently being changed against their favor.

A contract is a mutual agreement until one of the parties craps on the other enough times that those violated want out and may forcibly leave. It is a solid fact of human nature, but sometimes that maturation is slow in coming both to the individual and the masses.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
If the Southern States reiterated those secessions today, there would be no armed assault.


...thats not even remotely possible... theres something like 5000 military bases and installations in the usofa... do you think they're just gonna hand that land over to the succeeding states?... maybe lease it from the succeeding states?... i dont think so...

...heres an interesting article... "Who Owns The West", meaning the states in the western part of the usofa...

bigthink.com...

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory


...re: just for texans... for those who think succession is not only possible but a viable solution, think about this... besides land in texas thats owned by the federal government, who do you think owns the mineral rights, the pipelines, the salt dome storage units, the refineries, the ship channel industries?... do you think its all owned by loyal texans that would risk losing a penny of profit to facilitate succession or that would risk the federal government bombing their facilities in reprisal?...

...succession is a pipe dream at best...

...at worst, its another tool to encourage polarization among common folk and to keep us dreaming about or talking about something that the mucky mucks will never allow - but - thats just my opinion...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Agreed with most of the sentiments here.

When the states were granted sovereignty by the British, they were granted sovereignty one at a time, making each one "free and independent states." I think some of the confusion comes from how people these days see the term "state" as meaning part of a country, whereas when the Treaty of Paris was written and even today to some degree, a "state" is a free & independent nation. Later on, these states would form a union and grant some powers to a federal government, while retaining all others.

It was the opinion of the founding fathers & even the northerners of the time that states have the ability to leave the union. The idea that the federal government could invade one of its own states and hold it hostage against their will is absurd. That's why Lincoln had to use such dictatorial powers, like suspending habeas corpus, censoring the press, arresting thousands of northerners including government officials, etc. If people actually supported his actions, he wouldn't have the need to do all that. The northerners opposed his policies, the southerners opposed his policies, and even Lincoln proponents today admit that he was America's first dictator... but they say that he was a good dictator (as if there ever was a thing).

Lincoln's fans say that he had to do terrible things to end slavery but even Lincoln himself was a racist and wanted whites to maintain power. Consider these quotes:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
[Source]

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
[Source]

After reading that 2nd quote, I found it a bit ironic that Obama chose the Lincoln bible to be sworn in on. Either way, Lincoln in my opinion was the worst US president ever. I think freeing the slaves was the right thing to do, but causing the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and a undetermined number of civilians, and spending over 6 billion dollars to shred the constitution was the wrong way to do it. The rest of the world had good results from ending it peacefully, and I think the US could have done it too.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 





...re: just for texans... for those who think succession is not only possible but a viable solution, think about this... besides land in texas thats owned by the federal government, who do you think owns the mineral rights, the pipelines, the salt dome storage units, the refineries, the ship channel industries?... do you think its all owned by loyal texans that would risk losing a penny of profit to facilitate succession or that would risk the federal government bombing their facilities in reprisal?...


Most so called federal land is owned illegally. No land can be owned by the fed in any state without that states permission and and only minimally for federal purposes. All the BLM land and Forests and parks etc. is all unlawful for the feds to own.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

Most so called federal land is owned illegally. No land can be owned by the fed in any state without that states permission and and only minimally for federal purposes. All the BLM land and Forests and parks etc. is all unlawful for the feds to own.


...personal interpretation of what the federal government is allowed to do and is not allowed to do doesnt matter one iota... it hasnt mattered for decades upon decades... if you believe differently, create a case and take it to the supreme court and try to prove it and good luck with that (seriously)...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
first, there are major problems with state representation in the federal government.

look at hillary clinton. she had no ties to new york, she was born in chicago, illinois, yet she represented the state of new york on it's behalf.

america is supposed to be 50 independant state bound by mutual interests. it weakens the union when outsiders from different states run and represent other states where they have no common background or culture with the people they are supposed to petition for.

i think senators can only run for the state they were born in, that way don't have texans representing californians, and new yorkers representing ohio and so on.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by thewanger
The states give power to the federal government. The federal government does not give power to the states. The states can take away that power at any time. Read The Constitution.

Sorry, not looking for constitutional detail, just member's opinions.


Funny you would say that: opinions don't matter in a country of laws ;( except perhaps the opinions of the scotus) laws do.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
i think senators can only run for the state they were born in


...you just have to be a resident of the state you're running in...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by FarArcher
 


The American Civil War first began when Confederate troops opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor....All Confederate Apologists Lie.

So the union military blockading and firing on civilian ships in Charleston harbor does not constitute an act of war?
You might need to read some more history,other than the tripe they feed you in public school .



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join