Secession should be considered and allowed

[Stranger]

The reaction of grief and anger demonstrated by the liberals and Democrats reveals just how deep the divisions are in this country. (USA) Every election these reactions intensify as the divide gets greater. They are to the point now where peaceful transition of power, something the US always has prided itself in for several years anyway, is a thing of the past. Now the peaceful libs are not so peaceful. Rioting, destruction of property, beating people up because they voted for Trump, or using that as an excuse to beat white people up, is now a real danger. They speak of peace and unity according to their terms. No one elses.

Mayors of cities now declare that they will fight against Trump if He passes any law against Sanctuary Cities. Strange isn't it how when Obama and Democrats were in power that you must obey the Federal govt. Now that the power is back into Conservatives hands they say they will not obey. And we haven't even started yet on rescinding Roe-v-Wade.

Obama, Hillary, Libs helped create much of this violent reaction by labeling those who vote for Trump as deplorable, and evil, and full of hate. Thus now those who voted for Trump are the evil hate mongers of America. In other words, those opposed to the Libs, are evil.

I believe these divisions are based mainly on race and/or religion. I realize many voted for Trump for other reasons, but it doesn't matter to the Libs. The fact that they voted for Trump makes them a racist and hate monger or woman hater.

Rumors and threats of people wanting to leave the country and live somewhere else are common. And there are threats of states wanting to secede as a result of the election. I think the Govt. should think hard and long before dismissing 'secession' as wrong. Secession may be the only peaceful way to exist at this time. It would give people the ability to live under the type of government they want. Give power back to the States, even that of the right of secession, which was taken away violently due to another election, that of Lincoln. Now we have returned.

The United States since 1865 has been 'united' only by the bayonet. One might say secession is no answer. Well, fine, it may not be your answer. But my opinion is that the divisions are too great for any peace. My opinion is that we learn from history. It cost over 600,000 American lives to keep 'united'.

Stranger

 

[lforrest]

No single state's election results were entirely for Clinton; some counties in California had a Trump majority. Likewise there are large urban areas that voted Clinton in states that Trump won. That any American would be forced to follow with succession or move is unacceptable. Nor would succession prevent the spread of digressivism.

These crybabies need to learn to accept disappointment.

 

[Stranger]

No single state's election results were entirely for Clinton; some counties in California had a Trump majority. Likewise there are large urban areas that voted Clinton in states that Trump won. That any American would be forced to follow with succession or move is unacceptable. Nor would succession prevent the spread of digressivism.

These crybabies need to learn to accept disappointment.

Americans were forced back into the 'union' before. Do you have a problem with that?

Secession of a state is the product of the States population. If the population votes for it, then it is the will of the State.

It is not just 'crybabies' as you say. The divisions between us are too great to provide any unity. You're ignoring those. They are too great for them to ignore or accept.

Stranger

 

[lforrest]

Americans were forced back into the 'union' before. Do you have a problem with that?

Secession of a state is the product of the States population. If the population votes for it, then it is the will of the State.

It is not just 'crybabies' as you say. The divisions between us are too great to provide any unity. You're ignoring those. They are too great for them to ignore or accept.

Stranger

A few did resist the formation of the Union, I'm aware of one that was drawn and quartered for his treason.

If a state succeeds it's borders should be up for negotiation. We have no reason to accept the current borders expecially when there are adjacent counties of loyal Americans.

I believe your buying into the media hype. If put to vote no state would vote to succeed. The far left is just making a lot of noise.

If the riots get out of hand Institute martial law. Course that wouldn't happen till February.

 

[Stranger]

A few did resist the formation of the Union, I'm aware of one that was drawn and quartered for his treason.

If a state succeeds it's borders should be up for negotiation. We have no reason to accept the current borders expecially when there are adjacent counties of loyal Americans.

I believe your buying into the media hype. If put to vote no state would vote to succeed. The far left is just making a lot of noise.

If the riots get out of hand Institute martial law. Course that wouldn't happen till February.

You're not paying attention. My reference is to 1865 not 1776. So, answer my question. Americans were forced back into the Union. Are you comfortable with that, since your are so concerned with not forcing Americans to live under what they don't want to live.

The States borders are already determined. Try to change that and you would fuel fire to the secession movement.

Then put it to the vote for the states. Easily done. You say it wouldn't happen. So it's a win win for you.

Martial law does nothing but infuriate the other side. It does not bring any sort of 'peace'.

Again, the divisions are too great. My opinion is that it is going to be secession or war. And secession is much more preferable. Learn from history. It does repeat.

Stranger

 

[rockytopva]

Things to consider...

1. Hillary won the popular vote
2. There are democrats and republicans in each community
3. Succession is a pretty good generality... But there are a lot of specifics to take into consideration. The democratic vote this year was urban, and the republican rural... And there are urban and rural sections in every part of the country.

 

[Stranger]

Things to consider...

1. Hillary won the popular vote
2. There are democrats and republicans in each community
3. Succession is a pretty good generality... But there are a lot of specifics to take into consideration. The democratic vote this year was urban, and the republican rural... And there are urban and rural sections in every part of the country.

Hillary won the popular vote....ok...what is that supposed to mean?

There are democrats and republicans in each community....ok...what is that supposed to mean?

Secession is a generality?....ok....so is the results of the election....what is that supposed to mean?

Do you believe the Southern States of the 'U.S.' were rightfully forced to live under the Northern states will? How general was that?

The benefit of State secession is that it enables the state to decide the form of government it wants. People can live under or leave at will. Peace is secure. The people feel they have a place to go. At present, they have no place, as the divisions are too great.

Stranger

 

[lforrest]

You're not paying attention. My reference is to 1865 not 1776. So, answer my question. Americans were forced back into the Union. Are you comfortable with that, since your are so concerned with not forcing Americans to live under what they don't want to live.

The States borders are already determined. Try to change that and you would fuel fire to the secession movement.

Then put it to the vote for the states. Easily done. You say it wouldn't happen. So it's a win win for you.

Martial law does nothing but infuriate the other side. It does not bring any sort of 'peace'.

Again, the divisions are too great. My opinion is that it is going to be secession or war. And secession is much more preferable. Learn from history. It does repeat.

Stranger

Perhaps Lincoln's actions to save the Union were unconstitutional. However after the war, they have the right to dictate conditions to the losers.

As for the state borders I said if they decided to secceed, the border should be renegotiated. It shouldn't happen if they decide to not secceed. All the states that may want to secceed were carved out of larger territories. They are not like the original 13 colonies with borders matching their area of governance.

Let us also consider the National debt, they should receive a fare share of it.

Also the resources like water and electric power, California wouldn't be self sufficient. Although it would be nice to see a huge coal plant spewing smoke into the San Fernando Valley.

The prospect of civil war is a joke. "Out of Berkeley and into battle."

 

[Stranger]

Perhaps Lincoln's actions to save the Union were unconstitutional. However after the war, they have the right to dictate conditions to the losers.

As for the state borders I said if they decided to secceed, the border should be renegotiated. It shouldn't happen if they decide to not secceed. All the states that may want to secceed were carved out of larger territories. They are not like the original 13 colonies with borders matching their area of governance.

Let us also consider the National debt, they should receive a fare share of it.

Also the resources like water and electric power, California wouldn't be self sufficient. Although it would be nice to see a huge coal plant spewing smoke into the San Fernando Valley.

The prospect of civil war is a joke. "Out of Berkeley and into battle."

The 'right'? Though the efforts were unconstitutional, you say they have the 'right'? How hypocritical is that? They have the 'force' to dictate. The 'force' which you said no american should be put under. Or does that just mean those you agree with? You don't mind Americans being 'forced' to your liking. Therein is the difference.

As I said, the state borders already exist. If you want peace, then you don't try and change the borders. Let the people vote and determine if they want out of the union.

There are lots of things to consider, but for the sake of peace and not war, you should allow a state to secede if it wants to.

Don't be foolish. Civil war is always a possibility. Before the 'War Between The States', many were warning of it's danger. And many were acting like you, that it is a joke. Guess what? It came.

Allow the states to secede. Give people a place to go to feel they belong. Allow them to live under the government they like.

Stranger

 

[lforrest]

The 'right'? Though the efforts were unconstitutional, you say they have the 'right'? How hypocritical is that? They have the 'force' to dictate. The 'force' which you said no american should be put under. Or does that just mean those you agree with? You don't mind Americans being 'forced' to your liking. Therein is the difference.

As I said, the state borders already exist. If you want peace, then you don't try and change the borders. Let the people vote and determine if they want out of the union.

There are lots of things to consider, but for the sake of peace and not war, you should allow a state to secede if it wants to.

Don't be foolish. Civil war is always a possibility. Before the 'War Between The States', many were warning of it's danger. And many were acting like you, that it is a joke. Guess what? It came.

Allow the states to secede. Give people a place to go to feel they belong. Allow them to live under the government they like.

Stranger

Lincoln set the precedent of sustaining the union through war. It may have been against the constitution, but that is what he did and that is what Trump would do.

It is a joke because the US military would crush any rebellion.

 

[Stranger]

Lincoln set the precedent of sustaining the union through war. It may have been against the constitution, but that is what he did and that is what Trump would do.

It is a joke because the US military would crush any rebellion.

Well, yes. As I said, the US is united by bayonet since 1865. And thus it will always have to resort back to it to keep the 'unity'.

Our unity before was as individual states willfully agreeing upon a constitution to live under. Lincoln set a precedent alright. That is, that one area of the country had the right to force its will upon another area. And if such action was against the Constitution, then that which was supposed to unify us, no longer does.

So, what is the unifying factor that the US is propped up upon? What else but 'diversity'. You hear it all the time. They say because we are diverse then we are great. Who in the world dreamed that up? But as you see in our present election, diversity hasn't provided unity. It has contributed to disunity. Those props are very weak and crumbling.

The other side of the coin of secession is the willful uniting of states under a Federal Constitution. That doesn't sound bad. One may say that is too drastic. Well, in my opinion drastic is what is going to happen down the road if we don't allow secession. I think it should be seriously considered.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

Well, yes. As I said, the US is united by bayonet since 1865. And thus it will always have to resort back to it to keep the 'unity'.

Our unity before was as individual states willfully agreeing upon a constitution to live under. Lincoln set a precedent alright. That is, that one area of the country had the right to force its will upon another area. And if such action was against the Constitution, then that which was supposed to unify us, no longer does.

So, what is the unifying factor that the US is propped up upon? What else but 'diversity'. You hear it all the time. They say because we are diverse then we are great. Who in the world dreamed that up? But as you see in our present election, diversity hasn't provided unity. It has contributed to disunity. Those props are very weak and crumbling.

The other side of the coin of secession is the willful uniting of states under a Federal Constitution. That doesn't sound bad. One may say that is too drastic. Well, in my opinion drastic is what is going to happen down the road if we don't allow secession. I think it should be seriously considered.

Stranger

United by bayonet? You are revising history and the facts.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. If you want change, change The Constitution.

 

[Stranger]

United by bayonet? You are revising history and the facts.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. If you want change, change The Constitution.

How am I revising history and facts?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

How am I revising history and facts?

Stranger

Is the South currently under martial law?

 

[Stranger]

Is the South currently under martial law?

The South is part of the Union only by military victory of the North. In other words, united by the bayonet. So, again, how am I revising history and facts?

Stranger

 

[tom55]

The South is part of the Union only by military victory of the North. In other words, united by the bayonet. So, again, how am I revising history and facts?

Stranger

I agree with you that our unity (and peace) is dependent upon each individual State willfully agreeing to uphold The Constitution we live under. Since the States were willfully agreeing (before the Civil War) then no one was being forced into "unity by bayonet'.

The Republican Party was determined to prevent the spread of slavery AND after Lincoln won the presidency without carrying a single Southern State many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option, because they thought that they were losing representation which would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies.

The Civil War was fought because The Southern States wanted to keep slavery and the Federal Government, backed by The Constitution that all the States agreed to, said they couldn't keep slaves. So it was not as you falsely claim a situation where "one area of the country had the right to force its will upon another area". One "area" violated an agreement, The Constitution, and tried to set up their own Government. The already established Federal Government was victorious over them in war and brought peace and unity back to the UNITED States of America.

The US has NOT been united by bayonet since 1865. We were united before and after the Civil War by The Constitution; the rule of law. The Southern States tried to divide us by breaking the law.

 

[Stranger]

tom55

Yes, prior to the War between the States, the States voluntarily united, agreeing with the Constitution.

Yes the Republican party began in response to the Kansas/Nebraska bill with concern over the 'expansion' of slavery.

The Republican party was not devoted to the abolition of slavery. Understand, the north's concern over the South's slavery, was an economical and racial concern only. They on the whole, cared not one wit for the negro. They did care that slavery fueled the economy of the South, and the economy of the South was doing much better than the industrialized north. For that reason, they feared the 'expansion' of slavery into new territories which would later become states. For power reasons they feared this. Not for humanitarian reasons, as everyone is led to believe. And the north wanted the black man to stay in the South. Not expand to other territories where they wanted to go. My point is, its easy to throw that term slavery around to gain an audience. But be sure you identify what is really being said.

You need to check up on your history. The Constitution protected slavery. The South was right with the Constitution. The North ignored the Constitution. Slavery was extremely protected in 1860. The Supreme Court had just passed a law saying the South could take it's slaves in any state it wanted, according to the Constitution. Why would the South secede to protect slavery when it was already protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court? The violation of the Constitution was by the North. I recognize these things are not taught, but check your history. The South was fighting for the Constitution. The North was fighting against it. The South seceded because the North ignored their rights under the Constitution.

The 'Federal Govt.' didn't bring any peace in conquering the South. You apparently know nothing of the 'Reconstruction' of the South. Of course you don't. You don't know much of the causes of the War itself. You have simply bought into the PC explanation of that war today.

The US is united only by the bayonet because we left and the north forced us back by war. That is a unity based on war. No other way to put it. It is not based on the Constitution, becasuse we were defenders of the Constitution. After the War, the north changed the Constitution. Is that the one your talking about? Or did you even know? To the victor goes the spoils, and the history, and the myth making.

Stranger

 

[StanJ]

If a state succeeds it's borders should be up for negotiation. We have no reason to accept the current borders expecially when there are adjacent counties of loyal Americans.

LOL... who exactly are loyal Americans lforrest? Only 57.5% of eligible American voters participated in this last vote. Clinton got 48% of 134.5 million voters, with Trump at 46.7%. So basically Trump won with only 62.8 million votes of the eligible 231.5 million. That only represents 1/4 of eligible voters. That is a sad indictment of the voter apathy in America.

 

[lforrest]

LOL... who exactly are loyal Americans lforrest? Only 57.5% of eligible American voters participated in this last vote. Clinton got 48% of 134.5 million voters, with Trump at 46.7%. So basically Trump won with only 62.8 million votes of the eligible 231.5 million. That only represents 1/4 of eligible voters. That is a sad indictment of the voter apathy in America.

Loyal Americans will respect the democratic process.

It is interesting, I thought with all the hype there would be more of a turnout. But then again many people didn't like either candidate, so more may have stayed home because of that.

 

[StanJ]

Loyal Americans will respect the democratic process.
It is interesting, I thought with all the hype there would be more of a turnout. But then again many people didn't like either candidate, so more may have stayed home because of that.

So you're saying that loyal Americans don't demonstrate or don't voice their displeasure?

I agree... More than half of Americans thought that they were having to choose the lesser of two evils and decided not to.