If Your State Seceded

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

Americans are not guerrilla freedom fighters. A third of this country is fucking obese and unfit for combat. And there are many, many, many people that love to talk about how they would resist to the bitter end right now but, faced with an advancing tank or fire falling from the sky or a SEAL team, would do little more than shit their pants and raise a white flag.

If the military were to split (and there is absolutely no guarantee that it would. It atomized in the 19th century, but we live in a very different world now), that would certainly be a different story. But if it didn’t, secession would not work. At all.

102

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

If a slave no longer wants to be a slave he still must follow “the law”.

And besides, no one agreed to live by any law…why should I be held accountable for something my ancestors did? Seems kind of primitive to me.[/quote]

So if I decide everything you own is mine, then what? Can I do this unilaterally? The idea that I can is liberating only to me. The rest of you would call it oppression in the vilest of terms. Living up to your agreements is a lot harder but does allow for a stable society to form. Inherited agreements are to be treated the same way, since they allow institutions to outlast people. Not ideal for me, but arguably a good thing for the people around me I care about. I would much rather that due process stay in place for my kids, for instance.

Case in point, Arab societies have never really ever gotten off the ground economically. Why? Leftish analyses say it is because of exploitation by colonialist powers. A more interesting assessment was a recent book in which the major culprit is Sharia. Under Sharia, any agreement can be voided by any party at any time for any reason. This means that nobody wants to go in for large-scale economic ventures and more than a Bedouin-like economy is impossible. The most likely reason that the West took the lead in the world is precisely because of the nature of its contract law and the recent (since the early 1700’s) ability for the state to uphold them, and that the state itself is subject to them.

– jj[/quote]

Did you sign anything?

If not, how can something someone signed a few centuries agop be binding for you?

Also, what of the other side repeteadly does things not agreed upon?

May you leave then?

103

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Americans are not guerrilla freedom fighters. A third of this country is fucking obese and unfit for combat. And there are many, many, many people that love to talk about how they would resist to the bitter end right now but, faced with an advancing tank or fire falling from the sky or a SEAL team, would do little more than shit their pants and raise a white flag.

If the military were to split (and there is absolutely no guarantee that it would. It atomized in the 19th century, but we live in a very different world now), that would certainly be a different story. But if it didn’t, secession would not work. At all.[/quote]

x2. That is the only reason I believe the military could take some type of control. The majority of the citizens of this country do not have the basic knowledge or ability to stand against a standing army. Of course a large split of a military changes everything.

104

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I agree. If the nation were split down the middle and the military split with it, that would be a very different story. But as long as the US military is intact and on a side, that side wins.[/quote]

Couple things here- at the time of our Civil War, the military was very small, and also located predominantly out west.

However, the existing military was VERY split, and many of its best leaders went South- in effect, beheading the snake before it could strike. It took several years for solid Union leaders to emerge.

And if there’s one thing that we’ve learned in the past 70 years that we didn’t know really back then - it’s that the size and strength of the military does not necessarily connotate a victory. The war wouldn’t be fought by standing armies as it was back then…it would be fought by guerrilla tactics, much more in the fashion of Vietnam.[/quote]

And in an urban environment, where US cizizens would for the first time encounter a nervous military that cannot tell friend from foe from bystander…

Then we wait for the first photos of random people who were snatched from the streets and beaten to a pulp, excuse me, interrogated, IEDs not long after that, political assassinations, the gloves really come off when it comes to things like they patriot act and the average American will have to ask permission to take a piss…

The whole notion that a military or a government can hold on to power when it has a sizeable and determined part of the population against it is ludicrous.

[/quote]

How many countries do you think would support a revolt against the US government?[/quote]

Support?

Noone as long as the federal government has control of ze nukez.

Not raising a finger to work against it, quite a lot.

You know, internal affairs of the US, and so further and so on…

105

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And in an urban environment, where US cizizens would for the first time encounter a nervous military that cannot tell friend from foe from bystander…

Then we wait for the first photos of random people who were snatched from the streets and beaten to a pulp, excuse me, interrogated, IEDs not long after that, political assassinations, the gloves really come off when it comes to things like they patriot act and the average American will have to ask permission to take a piss…

The whole notion that a military or a government can hold on to power when it has a sizeable and determined part of the population against it is ludicrous.

[/quote]

It would be ugly. The US military would not just be killing very small yellow people or Islamic fundamentalists wearing their garb… it would be everyday American citizens, and there could be no dehumanization.
[/quote]

I think you seriously underestimate teh ability of people to dehumanize fellow human beings.

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

Like British citizens in the US colonies were sworn to the crown? Or how the writers of the constitution disobeyed their legal commission by throwing out the articles of confederation?[/quote]

Colonists were denied all due process as well as representation. I am more than willing to admit that revolution – very, very different from having a functioning legal system in place with clearly defined paths to accomplish various goals – might be in order at times. No argument there and we are happily no longer under the grinding heel of our imperialist colonialist pig oppressors. :o) But revolution is an extreme step and is a last resort. The Founding Fathers in the US were very much of this opinion and their pledges included that admission that their lives were forfeit should they fail. Even that inveterate anglophile Benjamin Franklin was exasperated with British intransigence and supported revolution.

The Articles of Confederation were not just thrown out. A Constitutional convention was held, the form of the new government hotly and thoroughly debated and ratification of the Constitution finally occurred. True, the adoption started in 1789, a full one year ahead of the date that the original Articles were slated to expire, but mostly this argument was dissent from a very small minority. The Articles made the US a basket case and most everyone was more than happy to get rid of them.

– jj

108

[quote]pushharder wrote:

*Good thread, Irish.[/quote]

Agreed. I don’t have the time to get involved, but it is very good, and a welcome change of pace.

109

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
As a Southerner I must confess that Mr. Lincoln was right: There is a very clear cut way for any State to leave. A bill is introduced into Congress, 2/3 majority passes it and out they go. The South violated due process of law.
[/quote]

Why does a state need to ask for permission to leave a union it no longer wants to be a part of?[/quote]

Because they agreed to uphold the law of the land. They cannot simply break the law if they feel like it anymore than a citizen can simply decide it is legal for them to rob banks. Lincoln was a lawyer and was a good one. His assessment of what the South did and what it meant for the US = the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is void if a State so chooses, was quite correct.

Had the South introduced a bill that allowed all of them to leave as a block then they would have had the voting clout to pull it off. There was no reason for succession the way they did it.

– jj[/quote]

If a slave no longer wants to be a slave he still must follow “the law”.

And besides, no one agreed to live by any law…why should I be held accountable for something my ancestors did? Seems kind of primitive to me.[/quote]

So if I decide everything you own is mine, then what? Can I do this unilaterally? The idea that I can is liberating only to me. The rest of you would call it oppression in the vilest of terms. Living up to your agreements is a lot harder but does allow for a stable society to form. Inherited agreements are to be treated the same way, since they allow institutions to outlast people. Not ideal for me, but arguably a good thing for the people around me I care about. I would much rather that due process stay in place for my kids, for instance.

Case in point, Arab societies have never really ever gotten off the ground economically. Why? Leftish analyses say it is because of exploitation by colonialist powers. A more interesting assessment was a recent book in which the major culprit is Sharia. Under Sharia, any agreement can be voided by any party at any time for any reason. This means that nobody wants to go in for large-scale economic ventures and more than a Bedouin-like economy is impossible. The most likely reason that the West took the lead in the world is precisely because of the nature of its contract law and the recent (since the early 1700’s) ability for the state to uphold them, and that the state itself is subject to them.

– jj[/quote]

You cannot force contracts onto people that have not yet been born. The notion that it would even be considered a contract is asinine.

110

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Please don’t begin arguing this with him here. He is trying to derail the thread with anarchist bullshit, you’ll only contribute to it if you keep up with this.

And I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. Just don’t engage him.[/quote]

Booo hooo…

111

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My state has seceded…[/quote]

Was waiting for this…dark times my friend.

112

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

…The Articles of Confederation were not just thrown out. A Constitutional convention was held, the form of the new government hotly and thoroughly debated and ratification of the Constitution finally occurred. True, the adoption started in 1789, a full one year ahead of the date that the original Articles were slated to expire, but mostly this argument was dissent from a very small minority. The Articles made the US a basket case and most everyone was more than happy to get rid of them.

– jj[/quote]

No matter how you slice and dice it the Constitutional Convention was technically illegal. The law of the land, i.e, the A of C was violated. In fact, the inherent weaknesses of the A of C were exposed/illustrated by the very formation of the CC.

*Good thread, Irish.[/quote]

Bingo. There were only ever commissioned to refine the AOC, they were never given authority to replace them. What they did was in fact illegal. Some of the appointees to the commission even refused to participate and left because it was illegal.

113

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My state has seceded…[/quote]

Was waiting for this…dark times my friend.[/quote]

I wont be surprised nor saddened if this occurs. The state is look more like a Third world country.

114

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My state has seceded…[/quote]

Was waiting for this…dark times my friend.[/quote]

I wont be surprised nor saddened if this occurs. The state is look more like a Third world country. [/quote]

Nor I.

The only problem is that all those loony people and their problems have to go someplace.

115

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My state has seceded…[/quote]

Was waiting for this…dark times my friend.[/quote]

I wont be surprised nor saddened if this occurs. The state is look more like a Third world country. [/quote]

Nor I.

The only problem is that all those loony people and their problems have to go someplace.
[/quote]

Exactly and they have. Texas has had a significant number already immigrate into the state.

116

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My state has seceded…[/quote]

Was waiting for this…dark times my friend.[/quote]

I wont be surprised nor saddened if this occurs. The state is look more like a Third world country. [/quote]

Nor I.

The only problem is that all those loony people and their problems have to go someplace.
[/quote]

Exactly and they have. Texas has had a significant number already immigrate into the state.[/quote]

Fuck, not Texas.

They are ruining my back up plan.

117

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If my state can seceded then I can also secede, too. That is anarchy.[/quote]

Can you secede from the T-Nation forums now?

118

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Americans are not guerrilla freedom fighters. A third of this country is fucking obese and unfit for combat. And there are many, many, many people that love to talk about how they would resist to the bitter end right now but, faced with an advancing tank or fire falling from the sky or a SEAL team, would do little more than shit their pants and raise a white flag.
[/quote]

And don’t forget the other percentage that would never be able to leave their pets.

119

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Americans are not guerrilla freedom fighters. A third of this country is fucking obese and unfit for combat. And there are many, many, many people that love to talk about how they would resist to the bitter end right now but, faced with an advancing tank or fire falling from the sky or a SEAL team, would do little more than shit their pants and raise a white flag.
[/quote]

smh23 has returned to reality, if only for one paragraph. I think most those guys who sleep with their AR-15s, round chambered and selector on fire would also raise their quivering hands.

Honour, loyalty, courage, patriotism, obedience to duty and the spirit of self-sacrifice? I’m in the process of aquiring all of those traits! I’m training right now with my abmaster pro and I’m down to 1 lbs of fructose a day. Pretty soon I’ll be able to see my own dick without a mirror! Gotta go watch Jerry now though. Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

120

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If my state can seceded then I can also secede, too. That is anarchy.[/quote]

Can you secede from the T-Nation forums now?[/quote]

Nope, not even for all the tea in China would I consider i.