USA falling apart?

[Felya]

Pretty sure I've never noticed the government monitoring me. If they are, which I doubt (beyond a normal level of blanket surveillance like the police watching whether or not I'm speeding), then it hasn't really impacted my life. Certainly, they aren't watching me 24/7.

The only thing the government is forcing me to buy that I might otherwise not buy is car insurance. I already get medical/dental insurance through my employer.

Pretty sure I can and do produce things for myself on a pretty regular basis, and I even get to keep those things!

Government death robots? People must be seeing a very different Texas than I do.

I have posted this before, but here is patriotism that was in a country that was much closer to what he described than US ever was:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEezXJ7IyQ

[Reeve]

Abolution of slavery was a hot issue for years, and one of the reasons the South feared the power of the North. But that isn't why the Majority of Southerners agreed to leave the union, remember only richest 10% of the white population owned slaves. The rest of the white southern population where no more for or against slavery than the rest of the population at the time. They did however fear the power of the North.

I don't think that just because a person didn't personally own slaves at that time meant they weren't against abolition. Never underestimate the power of racism or of wanting to know that there's someone out there that's less than you are, or fearing change, or fearing having to compete for wages with newly freed slaves. I honestly don't have data on hand to back this up, or the time to really research it fully at the moment, but I don't think you can say that just because only the wealthiest 10% of white men owned slaves that it automatically meant that the rest of the white male southern population were no more for or against slavery than the population in the North.

[SirRobin]

As for the Civil War, the main reason for the War. the reason the South left the Union had nothing to do with Slavery, it was because the South lost the Election. This is the same exact reason why this topic has continued. Remember if the war was about slavery the north would have invaded before the south secession, also the first shots where Confederates attacking a Union base. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that rebelled, and only for the duration of the war. several pro union states legally still had slaves after the war. It was a few years later that slavery was abolished, however true freedom wasn't achieved until the 1960's.

I would disagree with that. While the direct cause of the civil war was the secession and attack on Fort Sumter. Slavery was a major factor in bringing the country to that point. Politicians had been "kicking the can" down the road on Slavery since 1787. A final reckoning was inevitable. Now I am not talking about racism. I'm talking about the institution of Slavery.

Sorry may I ask what is wrong with the idea of Secession? Not saying there is a chance of it happening, but if the vast majority of people in texas wanted it, why would it be wrong in any respect? I mean how could the US call them selfs the lane of the free and then try to stop it?

I don't see anything actually wrong with secession. Whatever the legality and feasibility of it might be. What I see wrong is their justifications. They just don't hold up to any sort of serious examination.

[Seranthor]

Notice any similarities?

Sure, I see a similarity, I see 3 pictures with similar shading, what I dont see is the link you are attempting to infer, with your slanderous, dishonest posting.

Might I remind you of the following... the Slaves were freed by a Republican.... the KKK supported the Democrats for more than 100 years... Segregation was brought back into style by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson... it was Democrats that passed Jim Crowe laws over the objections of Republicans.... a Democrat, who was Ku Klux Klan grand dragon was a US senator until 2010 when he died.

Or do you want that in pictures?

[Felya]

I don't think that just because a person didn't personally own slaves at that time meant they weren't against abolition. Never underestimate the power of racism or of wanting to know that there's someone out there that's less than you are, or fearing change, or fearing having to compete for wages with newly freed slaves. I honestly don't have data on hand to back this up, or the time to really research it fully at the moment, but I don't think you can say that just because only the wealthiest 10% of white men owned slaves that it automatically meant that the rest of the white male southern population were no more for or against slavery than the population in the North.

The 10% doesn't really mean much, when we have tax cuts on the wealthy being supported by nearly half the country. That's 1-5% being supported by the vote of those who are not part of that percentage. The biggest issue was slaves, be it the imagined threat of the south and not actual action after the war, but the crux of all issues... From new state appropriation to economy, the crux involved the assumption that an abolitionist would abolish slavery.

[belfpala]

Yeah. I think it's impossible to say the civil war was about anything other than slavery, in the guise of states rights.

[SirRobin]

Sure, I see a similarity, I see 3 pictures with similar shading, what I dont see is the link you are attempting to infer, with your slanderous, dishonest posting.

Might I remind you of the following... the Slaves were freed by a Republican.... the KKK supported the Democrats for more than 100 years... Segregation was brought back into style by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson... it was Democrats that passed Jim Crowe laws over the objections of Republicans.... a Democrat, who was Ku Klux Klan grand dragon was a US senator until 2010 when he died.

Or do you want that in pictures?

And now some republicans are talking about seceding. Ah the circle of life or, well, politics in this case.

[Reeve]

Sure, I see a similarity, I see 3 pictures with similar shading, what I dont see is the link you are attempting to infer, with your slanderous, dishonest posting.

Might I remind you of the following... the Slaves were freed by a Republican.... the KKK supported the Democrats for more than 100 years... Segregation was brought back into style by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson... it was Democrats that passed Jim Crowe laws over the objections of Republicans.... a Democrat, who was Ku Klux Klan grand dragon was a US senator until 2010 when he died.

Or do you want that in pictures?

Are you suggesting that the modern Republican/Democratic parties today are along the same ideological lines they were in the 1860s and 1910s? They've pretty much switched.

[Felya]

Sure, I see a similarity, I see 3 pictures with similar shading, what I dont see is the link you are attempting to infer, with your slanderous, dishonest posting.

Might I remind you of the following... the Slaves were freed by a Republican.... the KKK supported the Democrats for more than 100 years... Segregation was brought back into style by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson... it was Democrats that passed Jim Crowe laws over the objections of Republicans.... a Democrat, who was Ku Klux Klan grand dragon was a US senator until 2010 when he died.

Or do you want that in pictures?

Yet, now a day, it is Texas that is fighting to bring back Jim Crowe. You do not need to convince anyone that democrats have changed and republicans are stuck in the past. We knew that already...

[Reeve]

Yet, now a day, it is Texas that is fighting to bring back Jim Crowe. You do not need to convince anyone that democrats have changed and republicans are stuck in the past. We knew that already...

Texas fighting to bring back Jim Crowe? What? I must have missed something, because I haven't seen any attempts to bring back racial segregation here.

[canyonvr]

Thoughts? Secession is illegal, and failed in 1860. This is crap brought to you by malcontent whiners and nothing more.

Better check your references there son. Nothing illegal about it.

[Felya]

Better check your references there son. Nothing illegal about it.

If so, please link the constitucional procedure for sececion.

[Wildtree]

Sorry may I ask what is wrong with the idea of Secession? Not saying there is a chance of it happening, but if the vast majority of people in texas wanted it, why would it be wrong in any respect? I mean how could the US call them selfs the lane of the free and then try to stop it?

Because it's illegal. Any state joining the Union obeys by the federal laws of the Union. Hence why joining should not be done without thinking properly.
The funny part is, that it's those who want to leave try to use the constitution to justify their decision, yet the very constitution prohibits secession.

[Felya]

Texas fighting to bring back Jim Crowe? What? I must have missed something, because I haven't seen any attempts to bring back racial segregation here.

I'm sensationalizing it, but I am referring to the attempts to legalize privately owned segregation.

[Shadee]

WOOOOO Texas #1

[Wildtree]

Better check your references there son. Nothing illegal about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

[Reeve]

I'm sensationalizing it, but I am referring to the attempts to legalize privately owned segregation.

I haven't heard anything about this.

[canyonvr]

Wikipedia as a reference source? REALLY?!

[Rukentuts]

Wikipedia as a reference source? REALLY?!

Protip: Wikipedia articles cite multiple external sources.

[Wildtree]

From the link posted. I am sure the Supreme Court uses this as reference to define whether secession is legal or not:

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Some of the movements to partition states have or do identify themselves as "secessionist" movements.

So, if the USA says, farewell, don't let the door hit you on your way out. You can leave.... If the USA says nope, not gonna happen, you cannot leave. Unless you start a revolution..