Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 9, 2019 21:26:15 GMT -8
Credo - was thinking along the lines of the north being aligned with Hamilton's Federalists more so than the whole moral high ground stuff.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 10, 2019 14:23:20 GMT -8
...If San Diego County voted to secede from the United States, the US would have no obligation to vacate Camp Pendleton... In that analogy, the US viewpoint would be there was no obligation to vacate Camp Pendleton. The new country of San Diego would disagree and consider Camp Pendleton to be under their jurisdiction They would be willing to fight to evict those they consider to be interlopers (or at the least, previous tenants who had been evicted). Being Libertarian, I have no issue with succession. If a group of people no longer want to be under the rule of a government for legitimate reasons, I believe they have an intrinsic right to separate and then rule themselves. If someone doesn't want to be a member in your club, why force them? Either Benjamin Franklin or some other oft quoted person once said "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I think that is a good thing to apply in many disagreements in life. As an addendum, I am going to alter my Fort Sumner analogy from earlier. The south firing the first shots of the Civil War was like a man punching a guy for putting his hand on the rear end of his mail order bride. The puncher believes he has the right to defend his brides honor while the punchee says the marriage is a sham and the woman is still legally on the market, not spoken for. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 10, 2019 16:23:28 GMT -8
Although there is no constitutional redress for those states or areas desiring to no longer be a part of the United States, I do agree with our delegate from Rancho Santa Margarita: If they don’t want to be here, leabe our stuff by the door and hit the bricks... and, y “our stuff”, I mean anything owned by the United States, such as military bases and Federal Office Buildings, just to name a couple.
I advocated for CA to leave the union for years and, now that Trump is building a wall, just turn it North and wall off CA, too...
However, more recently, my efforts here have focused on Cook County (where Chicago resides) getting out of Illinois, and taking their corrupt politicians with them.
Not that either will happen any time soon.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 10, 2019 18:25:07 GMT -8
RSM,
Certainly those theoretical San Diego secessionists might feel as though they now own Camp Pendleton because they have declared their independence. But Camp Pendleton is and has been owned and developed by the US Gov for over 50 years. Simply stating an intention to secede does not make it your property, and the same would have been for Fort Sumter.
I see your point and that was the typical Southern perspective, but understand there is another way of looking at it. If you get a bunch of investors (i.e. independent states) to agree to join in an investment (the Union) and pool their resources, then all the resources are commonly held. Once the investment starts going south (no pun intended) you cannot unilaterally say you don’t like the investment anymore and want your money back. That’s apparently the way Abraham Lincoln and the North looked at it. Both perspectives are defensible and in this case the guy with the bigger army won.
I don’t think you have the analogy quite right, either. The guy (who represents the Union) with his hand on the derriere of that mail order bride (who represents to Fort Sumter) is actually married to her (i.e. she is Union property) and his hand has been there for over 100 years. Now you as the puncher to be (representing the Confederacy) come up and unilaterally declare that she is your bride and you believe you have the right to hit the guy because his hand is on the derriere of your self-declared property. I think that’s an equally justifiable interpretation…………………………Luca
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 11, 2019 11:53:21 GMT -8
I agree, my analogy was off. Even if I throw a divorce in it or have the union guy be a wife beater, it doesn't really work well.
Is it your perspective that once a state is admitted to the union, there is never a way for it to leave on its own accord? Is the union of states like marriage, for better or for worse, til death do they part?
While I view marriage as something that should rarely end in divorce and that "til death do you part" is not just flowery language but the starting point of nuptials, I don't carry the same view when it comes to governments. The only reason any states should form a union is if it is mutually beneficial for all. If any state believes that benefit has changed or ended, my view of the inalienable right of liberty means that state should be able to leave the union.
I realize that as the Federal government has grown, the ability to leave the union has become more difficult. However, the fact that the Federal government has become the behemoth it is should be reason enough for a state to leave. It really isn't the same deal many of them signed up for.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 11, 2019 12:39:46 GMT -8
I'm on board with this thinking, RSM. We're a republic, and if those that are elected to serve us fail to do so, we should be allowed to leave the union.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 11, 2019 16:42:17 GMT -8
Is it your perspective that once a state is admitted to the union, there is never a way for it to leave on its own accord? If any state believes that benefit has changed or ended, my view of the inalienable right of liberty means that state should be able to leave the union. I cannot find the quote, but I remember reading Lincoln saying something to the effect that no government had ever included in its constitution a means for its own destruction. Philosophically, if a large group of citizens representing the large majority of a defined area of a country want to separate, it can be justifiable. How large a group, how large a majority? Who knows? There are so many variables in such a situation you cannot come up with a one size fits all answer. Shortly after the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution was adopted, if a particular state wanted out that would probably have been reasonable. But if California wants to secede now? No way. The US has invested vast sums and effort developing California and there is no way short of another Civil War. Shelby Foote once wrote “ Before the war it was always the United States *are*, after the war it was the United States is... it made us an is........... i.e. a single entity and not a mere association of states . So if those San Francisco whack jobs want California to secede they can find some other corner in the world and call it “California” if they like, but we’re not going anywhere . "........if those that are elected to serve us fail to do so, we should be allowed to leave the union."Agreed, Bick. We are free to leave any time, and wherever you move to hopefully you will find it a more congenial spot. But don't forget to close the door behind you when you go.......................................Luca |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 11, 2019 19:33:29 GMT -8
Is it your perspective that once a state is admitted to the union, there is never a way for it to leave on its own accord? If any state believes that benefit has changed or ended, my view of the inalienable right of liberty means that state should be able to leave the union. ...But if California wants to secede now? No way. The US has invested vast sums and effort developing California and there is no way short of another Civil War. A couple of notes on that thought. First, staying with your example of California secession, the US hasn't invested in developing California, citizens from other states have. At the same time, Californians have invested in the other 49 states. Should California seceded, they would be giving up the benefits from their money & effort into the other states. Most likely it would be a wash, although you often hear a stat about California getting back less in Federal funds than their citizens paid in. So money spent in the past on California should be a moot point. Second, the fact that the Federal government has been involved in redistributing tax funds among the states should be reason enough to allow secession. That, among many, many things, is something the Federal government was never designed to do. If you join an organization whose stated mission gets twisted & tweaked over time so that it eventually becomes nothing close to what it was when you joined, forcing you to stay in said organization is akin to being held hostage. I have never been fond of forced unions, I believe voluntary interaction is the most effective & fair way for people, groups or governments to join together. Forced unions are typically preferred by the parties that enjoy an unfair advantage over the other members. In a voluntary union, every side has to balance its wants & needs so that its partners decide that they want to stay together. I'd say that is a much more healthy relationship. BTW, personally I have no dream of living in a state that chooses to secede. All I want is the Federal government to get back to doing what it was intended, being a glue that holds the states together, rather than a behemoth that forces itself into citizens everyday life. I am told that will never happen, that the Federal government is now so large it will never give up its power or control. Therefore, starting over now seems like the only option to get back to a union of states that wants to follow the original concepts of the Constitution. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 11, 2019 19:54:40 GMT -8
If the 13 colonies of British North America could secede from the Crown in 1776, then I suppose that provides any necessary moral justification for one of the 50 states to secede today.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 11, 2019 21:55:26 GMT -8
Yes, Luca. I'm aware I'm free to leave if I don't like it here.
There may very well be a tipping point on the horizon that would serve as a catalyst for a larger scale secession. A Trump re-election could be just that. Both Texas and CA have dabbled with it a bit, and by virtue of choosing to ignore federal mandates about immigration, CA is moving closer to that again. How close remains to be seen. There is a growing chasm between left and right that is accelerating faster than the cow farts are melting the polar caps.
Imagine if Trump said "OK Gavin. You and your ilk in CA don't want a wall...fine. We're pulling ICE and the Border Patrol, and you can just let them all in. You wan't open borders - you've got 'em. BTW, we're pulling all federal funding as well." Tell me he wouldn't do it.
The USSR seemed to be able to break apart without a whole lot of bloodshed, except for the Ukraine. Why must there be bloodshed (another Civil War) here?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 11, 2019 22:05:29 GMT -8
BTW, personally I have no dream of living in a state that chooses to succeed. All I want is the Federal government to get back to doing what it was intended, being a glue that holds the states together, rather than a behemoth that forces itself into citizens everyday life. I am told that will never happen, that the Federal government is now so large it will never give up its power or control. Therefore, starting over now seems like the only option to get back to a union of states that wants to follow the original concepts of the Constitution. I agree with the 2 bolded points as well. Both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were about independence, and freedom to live as they saw fit. Today, the left and right see life very differently. Big gov't and control v. limited gov't and freedom. Loose interpretation of the Constitution v. a more strict one. With absolutely zero bi-partisan cooperation, the sole intent of politicians is to grab power. Who on either side wants to live under the rule of the other? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 12, 2019 5:16:01 GMT -8
...But if California wants to secede now? No way. The US has invested vast sums and effort developing California and there is no way short of another Civil War. BTW, personally I have no dream of living in a state that chooses to succeed.  |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 12, 2019 7:44:56 GMT -8
Wars for independence have been fought since before forever, whenever a state, province or colony felt they were being disadvantaged. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. If California wants to secede, they'd better start suiting up a whole lot of Johnny Rebs to fight that battle. And if the movement to secede gains serious traction, watch the money flow out of this state like crap through a Christmas goose.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 12, 2019 8:22:37 GMT -8
The question I've got is SHOULD a state be allowed to secede from the union...without having to fight a war over it? Given we were designed as a republic of independent states, I'm thinking it should be allowed.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 12, 2019 10:49:20 GMT -8
Just as a reminder, today is the 158th anniversary of General Beauregard’s attack on the United States fort, Fort Sumter, in retaliation for Lincoln winning the White House a month before.
|
|
