Secession

[Oakman]

First off, I don't think it's a great idea. There are a number of practical reasons why no state, or even a dozen contiguous states could make a go of declaring independence from Washington, DC. But I have been interested in the responses I have heard from the talking heads on cable - some of them presented as constitutional scholars. 1. Secession is illegal. Well, maybe, but so was revolting against the British Empire in 1775. Rebellions are always illegal - unless the rebels win. 2. The Civil War settled whether it was permissible. The Civil War settled the question of whether the Northern Armies could defeat the Southern Armies. The answer was obviously in the affirmative. However, it begs the question of what would happen today as opposed to 1861. Would the U.S. declare war against the rebels? Would the armed forces - which are about 3/5ths southern - accept orders to attack their friends and neighbors? According to Janet Napolitano a great number of men and women serving in the armed forces are likely recruits for the rebels. 3. Most of the states that talk about secession are states that receive more in Federal aid than they pay in taxes. This is true - but more than in the "donor" states, the people who pay taxes are not the people who receive Federal benefits. The minute, for instance, that Texas cut off welfare payments to non-citizens, there would be a mass migration either back into Mexico or over into California. Personally, I think we stick together in part because we are used to it. Being able to trade, travel, and speak the same language (more or less) as the rest of our 3.8 million square mile country is both a convenience and a necessity. On the other hand, it is not the states that are changing their attitudes, it is Washington D.C. that is changing its attitude, more and more breaking the written and understood contracts that bind, and have bound for 225 years, the states in a common solemn compact. More and more it seems, the Feds are doing what is good for the Feds and, just like Charlie Wilson who, in the '50's, claimed that what was good for General Motors was good for the USA, we are now being told that what is good for the politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. is good for the USA. It is, as the ghost of Charlie Wilson can testify, a short-sighted policy.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Tim Craig]

Oakman wrote:

which are about 3/5ths southern - accept orders to attack their friends and neighbors? According to Janet Napolitano a great number of men and women serving in the armed forces are likely recruits for the rebels.

True during the Civil War. Many if not most of the Southern Generals were serving in the US Army at the time and went over. Notably, Lee, who was I believe West Point trained and had distinguished himself in the Mexican War. On the note of splitting, California was admitted to the Union reserving the right to split into, IIRC, up to four states. You occasionally hear the possiblility of a split into Northern and Southern California offered up as a way of dealing with some of the major political differences between north and south here, notably water rights. Damned water sucking Angelinos! :laugh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

The Civil War settled the question of whether the Northern Armies could defeat the Southern Armies. The answer was obviously in the affirmative. However, it begs the question of what would happen today as opposed to 1861. Would the U.S. declare war against the rebels? Would the armed forces - which are about 3/5ths southern - accept orders to attack their friends and neighbors? According to Janet Napolitano a great number of men and women serving in the armed forces are likely recruits for the rebels.

It is also a bit of a puzzle as to how a conflict such as that might resolve itself in a modern industrial society. Its not like supplies are going to continue to flow into the local wal-mart in the middle of a civil war. Most 'blue states' are actually concentrations of large urban areas that would be much more vulnerable to any large social upreaval than would the more agrarian 'red state' areas. The very diverstiy they have tried so hard to artificially engender would be their achilles heel. As you say, the red states have much more military training and are predisposed to use it if pushed. The blue states are the very people who do not believe in violence and warfare and 'harse measures'. If they treat captured red state rebels the way they want to treat Islamic terrorists, we could defeat them merely by clogging up their courts systems.

Oakman wrote:

3. Most of the states that talk about secession are states that receive more in Federal aid than they pay in taxes. This is true - but more than in the "donor" states, the people who pay taxes are not the people who receive Federal benefits. The minute, for instance, that Texas cut off welfare payments to non-citizens, there would be a mass migration either back into Mexico or over into California.

This is only true because most industry, technology and banking centers, where people earn big money, are concentrated in blue state areas. The question is how many of them would stay there to live under the collectivist principles and high taxes. But this was the same fundamental problem the South faced in 1861 - little industrial or financial infrastructure, yet they managed to build up such an infrastructure pretty quickly as needed. By 1865, the CSA was the third most industrialized nation on the planet.

Oakman wrote:

Personally, I think we stick together in part be

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Its not like supplies are going to continue to flow into the local wal-mart in the middle of a civil war.

Except, perhaps on the left coast, at least at first.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Most of the reasoning behind the constitution and the bill of rights was to find someway to prevent just such a situation.

The ultimate Federalist triumph was in the preamble wherein the creation of the central government is claimed to have come not from the states but from "We, the people." The 9th and 10th amendments were an attempt to balance this, but the language there, though clear, is weak. More of the powers that were reserved to the states should have been enumerated. Otherwise, as happened, every time the Feds discovered a new "constitutionally-empowered" right to interfere in the lives of the citizens, the states lost a little more of their sovereignty.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

The ultimate Federalist triumph was in the preamble wherein the creation of the central government is claimed to have come not from the states but from "We, the people."

Thats actually not a bad observation. Except...

Oakman wrote:

The 9th and 10th amendments were an attempt to balance this, but the language there, though clear, is weak. More of the powers that were reserved to the states should have been enumerated. Otherwise, as happened, every time the Feds discovered a new "constitutionally-empowered" right to interfere in the lives of the citizens, the states lost a little more of their sovereignty.

... it all worked quite well for a very long time. Even with all the occassional assualts, our democracy always corrected itself back in the same direction. My argument would be that the 14th amendment created a small chink in the founder's constitutional armor which, after nearly a full century, was exploited to drive a collectivist spear through the heart of our republic. Which is ironic since that would mean the legal consequencies of the previous civil war create the justification for disunion today.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[John Carson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/opinion/18collins.html?ref=opinion[^]

John Carson

[Stan Shannon]

Yeah, the pinkos are having a lot of fun with it all. So what? No one expected any thing more from them. They are a non-issue. They are the ones afraid to have a real debate about the constutionality of it all. Simply reasserting the forgotten 10th amendment will prove to be secession enough. Thats the elephant in the room that they keep trying to hide with a little frilly doily.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

John, I am truly unsure of what you were aiming to accomplish by posting that link. It's obvious that this woman either doesn't understand why people would be angry at Washington and its policies or (more likely) doesn't care. It's not clear what point she was making other than the perceived irony of waving an American flag and shouting "Secede!" I note for anyone's benefit who might find this curious that the flag, for many of us, represents an idea and an ideal - not the person or party in power in Washington. There was a concerted effort on the part of a lot of the media not simply to down-play the attendance at the tea-parties (estimates now range from around 270,000 to around 330,000) but actively attack the rallies as if, somewhere along the line people who had applauded the anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's had decided that the right to peaceably protest was no longer a constitutional right. The piece de resistance, for me, was Keith Olbermann and Jeanine Garofalo agreeing that the rallies were pure and simple racism protesting only the election of a (half) black man. Of course, by dismissing it this way, neither of them were required to think about any issues raised by or at the rallies. At any rate, Rick Perry is just another politician trying to figure out which way the people are going so he can scurry to the front and claim to be a leader. The sentiments expressed at these rallies are real. The anger is real. Perry cannot make it more so, nor can Olbermann make it less. And, as I said, the folks in power don't seem to be martialing terribly strong arguments about why the country shouldn't split apart. The lady you linked to certainly didn't offer any.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

the flag, for many of us, represents an idea and an ideal - not the person or party in power in Washington.

Hear, Hear ! And I would add "nor does the major party out of power", echoing Chris Austins point that neither party is on the side of the people, as far as I can see.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

And I would add "nor does the major party out of power", echoing Chris Austins point that neither party is on the side of the people, as far as I can see.

Although they act as if they believe otherwise, it is not the politicians (of either party) that have given us our rights or taught us our duty to this country.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

it is not the politicians (of either party) that have given us our rights

Yes, that would be our creator. But, gee, that implies some principle of purposeful, intelligent design, so obviously that concept has no place in the modern US. :rolleyes:

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Yes, that would be our creator.

Perhaps so. But do you really think He lies awake nights worrying whether or not He was praised enough the previous day - or whether donations were large enough at the myriad of churches, temples, mosques, etc that all claim to speak for Him?

Stan Shannon wrote:

that concept has no place in the modern US

I suggest you reread the history of the enlightenment.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

But do you really think He lies awake nights worrying whether or not He was praised enough the previous day - or whether donations were large enough at the myriad of churches, temples, mosques, etc that all claim to speak for Him?

I really don't concern myself with what "he" does.

Oakman wrote:

I suggest you reread the history of the enlightenment.

Why? Do I have some sort of social obligation to that history?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Do I have some sort of social obligation to that history?

Nope, only an obligation to yourself not to make statements not suported by the facts. Although I guess in the Back Room, that's not the highest priority you have.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Nope, only an obligation to yourself not to make statements not suported by the facts.

So you're suggesting that the declaration of independence was not an expression of enlightenment thought?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Tim Craig]

Stan Shannon wrote:

So you're suggesting that the declaration of independence was not an expression of enlightenment thought?

My interpretation is that he's saying most of what you say here isn't an expression of enlightened thought.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

John, I am truly unsure of what you were aiming to accomplish by posting that link.

The essential point is about the phonyness and hypocrisy of the much-touted patriotism of much of the Republican base. I realise, of course, that people will justify their stance on the basis that they defend the "true ideals of America" or some such. What this means is that they support their country only to the extent that it accords with their ideology. If the left shows a much milder form of such an attitude, then the same Republicans denounce the left as traitors.

Oakman wrote:

There was a concerted effort on the part of a lot of the media not simply to down-play the attendance at the tea-parties (estimates now range from around 270,000 to around 330,000) but actively attack the rallies as if, somewhere along the line people who had applauded the anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's had decided that the right to peaceably protest was no longer a constitutional right.

Hysterical nonsense. Just the sort of thing one hears at the tea parties. No one is challenging the right to peaceably protest. Mockery of said protesters, however, falls under the right to free speech.

Oakman wrote:

The sentiments expressed at these rallies are real. The anger is real. Perry cannot make it more so, nor can Olbermann make it less.

I think a lot of people are real angry that Obama won. I think Krugman's take on the tea parties is, as usual, pretty accurate. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html[^]

John Carson

[Stan Shannon]

Tim Craig wrote:

My interpretation is that he's saying most of what you say here isn't an expression of enlightened thought.

How so? I realize that what he is probably getting at is the notion of 'natural rights'. However, natural rights minus a creator is a dubious concept. Where precisely does one actual see 'natural rights' in nature? Nature obviously provides no 'right to life' for example.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

The essential point is about the phonyness and hypocrisy of the much-touted patriotism of much of the Republican base.

John Carson wrote:

If the left shows a much milder form of such an attitude, then the same Republicans denounce the left as traitors.

This is just the same old 'They started it' argument. As I have said, I didn't buy it from my kids when they weren't even teenagers, I am certainly not buying it from adults.

John Carson wrote:

I think a lot of people are real angry that Obama won

I think a lot of people are really angry that Obama won under false pretenses.

John Carson wrote:

I think Krugman's take on the tea parties is, as usual, pretty accurate.

I hesitate to ask - but did you attend one? Watch extended coverage of one? or is your experience limited to what you read in the NY Times? One of the talking points repeated over and over claimed that every one who showed up at the tea parties were Republican faithful. In fact many people showed up who had voted for Obama, many more who had voted for Ron Paul. Many of the signs at these rallies made it quite clear that their makers agreed with Chris Austin's sentiments as seen in my sig. It is quite clear that whatever Krugman's qualifications are as an economist, he is quite capable of trash-talk as a political hack. It is, of course, "Op-Ed" pieces written by Times employees and supporting the opinions of the editorial staff that helps explain why the Times is being read by fewer and fewer people.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

This is just the same old 'They started it' argument.

No it isn't. The argument is about hypocrisy. The Obama critics were going on and on about him wearing a flag pin, about whether he held his hand over his hand during the saying of the oath of allegiance (or was it the playing of the national anthem --- I forget), about Michelle's comment about being proud of her country for the first time. They promote a "my country, right or wrong" line and viciously denounce anyone who deviates from it. And then they talk about secession. Complete and utter hypocrisy. For what it is worth, I have never been a "my country, right or wrong person" --- regardless of which country we are talking about. I don't fault Republicans for their lack of patriotism on the secession issue. I fault them for their nauseating hypocrisy.

Oakman wrote:

I think a lot of people are really angry that Obama won under false pretenses.

I think that Obama has pretty much done what he said he would do. His commitments on energy, health and the rest were well flagged, as were his tax policies. A collapsing economy has increased the deficit by reducing revenues and increasing expenditures even in the absence of any active policy response and Obama has added to that deficit with a stimulus package --- as the situation required.

Oakman wrote:

I hesitate to ask - but did you attend one? Watch extended coverage of one? or is your experience limited to what you read in the NY Times?

And if I had attended one, what percentage of the tea parties would that one represent? Is one tea party a statistically significant sample? I have read multiple accounts of tea parties in different places and seen multiple videos. On a more parochial level, I have noted the enthusiasm of Mike Gaskey and Stan Shannon for these events and the enthusiasm of others of similar ilk on other forums that I frequent.

Oakman wrote:

One of the talking points repeated over and over claimed that every one who showed up at the tea parties were Republican faithful. In fact many people showed up who had voted for Obama, many more who had voted for Ron Paul. Many of the signs at these rallies made it quite clear that their makers agreed with Chris Austin's sentiments as seen in my sig.

I have read that a lot of attendees