Quote: Original post by LessBread
It seems to me that 600,000+ Americans died nearly 150 years ago deciding the question of secession. I don't know why neo-Confederates waste other people's time revisiting the issue.

I was tempted to do some reductio ad absurdum on that one, but the more im looking for words, the more it seems like youve beat me to it.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by LessBread
... Confederacy, but those who talk up secession deserve the label.

As a member of a nation built on Confederation, I wouldn't mind knowing just how you are choosing to define that label.

Honestly, if a large number of citizens feel that the best way for them to live is to stop being part of the United States, then all the power to them to leave the union peacefully and build their own lives.

However I can't really see any part of the USA splitting away in an overly violent way (beyond extremist radicals in small isolated groups) and building walls to cut themselves off from the rest of the USA. At best I think we will see a restructure of the Federal level of government, and different parts of the USA being more independent, while still holding open boarders as they do now.

I was talking about the US Civil War. In that context there should be no confusion about what I meant by Confederacy. Granted, as a Canadian you may not be familiar with that portion of American history, but maybe not, as there have been several movies made on the subject.

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote: Original post by Talroth
As a member of a nation built on Confederation, I wouldn't mind knowing just how you are choosing to define that label.

See Civil War of the United States of America.

The use of the Confederacy label has really has nothing to do with a confederate form of government. Really if the South had chosen to refer to themselves as followers of the "Articals of the Dumzits"...Lessbread would be useing the label of Dummzies instead.

Exactly. I know you know this, but for others that may not here's a thumbnail sketch.

Following the revolution, the former colonies bound themselves together under a document called "The Articles of Confederation". It didn't turn out to work very well, so a group of important men decided new organizational arrangements were needed. They met and hashed out the Constitution. Substantial portions of the public were not happy with the Constitution, but the addition of the Bill of Rights helped to persuade the public to adopt it. Nevertheless, many people accepted it only begrudgingly. When the South seceded in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, they claimed to be reverting to the Articles of Confederation as part of their efforts to legitimate their actions. They came to be known as Confederates.

To call someone a Confederate today, is to say that they are stuck in the 19th century, they hold antiquarian views, they're possibly racist, they're backwards, foolish and so on. It's not meant to be flattering.

Those choosing seccession(sp?)need not wait for others, as a joint confederation for example, but as an individual one.

One might want to be prudent and seek partnership of others who choose to do so, mainly for both economical and partnership protection, i.e., of each other.

As individual, Stand-alone, secceders, you have to consider how to protect yourselves from the likes of Cartel who want you as a safe-haven, or to overpowewr you and take over.

Also, remember you are independent, have not the protection of those who remain united to whatever is left over.
The other option is, wherever your state constitution alows it, to join a confederation of others who wish to peacefully manage themselves.

Any thoughts??

Look at the POSTINGS...one Helluva lot of California and West coast desires to go for it!

What?

Most California residents polled say no to a split state (March 12, 2009)

Quote:
They don't care how you slice it: Californians think the idea of splitting up the state is still baloney.

In fact, they are less in favor of bisecting the Golden State than at any time since 1981. And it doesn't matter much whether the proposal to make two states out of one is proposed along longitudinal or latitudinal lines.

At least that's what today's Field Poll results say. A survey taken during the last week of February found that a whopping 82 percent of those polled disapproved of splitting the state into Eastern California and Western California.

A hefty 71 percent didn't like the idea of formally dividing Northern California from Southern California.
...

Ideologically, the denial of right of secession smacks of tyranny to me. I don't understand why people find the notion so offensive. Isn't self-determination a worthwhile right?

Quote: Original post by MSW
Catch-22 of course is that the bill proposes the creation of a NH committee to decide the constituionality of federal government policys...in effect declairing itself above the suprime court (whom are entrusted with that authority) and the constitution itself (which doesn't give a state such authorty to begin with)...which I suppose could be interpreted as a declaration of rebellion.

You touch on some interesting issues. Of course, they all stem back to that old argument of the Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder if this is a discussion we will be having once again in the coming years.

Personally, I find it quite heartening that several states are once again asserting their rights to the leviathan state we have in DC.

I think it's as dumb as "Going Galt".

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
Ideologically, the denial of right of secession smacks of tyranny to me. I don't understand why people find the notion so offensive. Isn't self-determination a worthwhile right?

Quote: Original post by MSW
Catch-22 of course is that the bill proposes the creation of a NH committee to decide the constituionality of federal government policys...in effect declairing itself above the suprime court (whom are entrusted with that authority) and the constitution itself (which doesn't give a state such authorty to begin with)...which I suppose could be interpreted as a declaration of rebellion.

You touch on some interesting issues. Of course, they all stem back to that old argument of the Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder if this is a discussion we will be having once again in the coming years.

Personally, I find it quite heartening that several states are once again asserting their rights to the leviathan state we have in DC.

Once again? These secession movements have been ongoing practicly sense the day Washington first took office.

The HCR-006 N.H. bill described through most of the thread died.



Roll call of the vote:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Roll_Calls/billstatus_billrollcalls.aspx?lsr=274&sy=2009&lb=H&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2009&txtbillnumber=HCR6

Date.......Vote..Motion........................................Yeas.Nay 03/04/2009.27....ITL...........................................216..150  03/04/2009.35....LAY.RECONSIDERATION.ON.TABLE.(REP.W.O'BRIEN)..108..207  03/04/2009.36....RECONSIDERATION.(REP.EATON)...................104..212  

ITL = INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE (or inadvisable to legislate...basicly yeas = kill the bill)

[Edited by - MSW on March 12, 2009 10:22:14 PM]

Quote: Original post by MSW

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
Ideologically, the denial of right of secession smacks of tyranny to me. I don't understand why people find the notion so offensive. Isn't self-determination a worthwhile right?

Quote: Original post by MSW
Catch-22 of course is that the bill proposes the creation of a NH committee to decide the constituionality of federal government policys...in effect declairing itself above the suprime court (whom are entrusted with that authority) and the constitution itself (which doesn't give a state such authorty to begin with)...which I suppose could be interpreted as a declaration of rebellion.

You touch on some interesting issues. Of course, they all stem back to that old argument of the Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder if this is a discussion we will be having once again in the coming years.

Personally, I find it quite heartening that several states are once again asserting their rights to the leviathan state we have in DC.

Once again? These secession movements have been ongoing practicly sense the day Washington first took office.

The HCR-006 N.H. bill described through most of the thread died.

I meant the broader discussion of Constitutional interpretation, which has been more or less a 'settled' matter since Lincoln. I say this because a number of other states also have 10th amendment assertion bills going through the works ( some with more success so far than NH's HCR-006) and the growing Libertarian movement in the country.