Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't

Originally posted by Kombatt98

Hold on! You said Canada defeated the US and now your saying its a stalemate ? Please get your facts straight. You cant have a stalemate and a defeat at the same time.

Canada defeated you , because , you failed to conquer Canada despite your goal to do so

Maybe you need to actually read history rather than imagine it ?

The war had nothing to do with the USA invading Canada, it have everything to do with American expansion West of the Mississippi.

Originally posted by Kombatt98

First and foremost the British tried to involve themselves but they failed to do so because of Lincoln's diplomacy. Second, even if the British tried to start something they would have again lost because the US had vastly increased our military after the above war you mentioned and was in much better shape to fight than in 1812.

more make believe scenarios huh?
[edit on 17-4-2009 by Kombatt98]

No just history. Maybe if you actually read enough of history you will actually understand. Start at the Trent Affair.

reply to post by IAF101

Maybe you need to actually read history rather than imagine it ?

The war had nothing to do with the USA invading Canada, it have everything to do with American expansion West of the Mississippi.

Conquering Canada The primary goals of the War of 1812 were conquering Florida, at the time native American territory, and Canada, then British territory. Although the U.S. ostensibly went to war over maritime issues, John Randolph of Virginia noted, "Agrarian cupidity, not maritime rights, urges this war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one eternal monotonous tone - Canada! Canada! Canada! Not a syllable about Halifax, which unquestionably should be our great object in a war for maritime security." U.S. leaders were confident of easily taking over our neighbor to the north. William Eustis, the U.S. Secretary for War declared: "We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard." John C. Calhoun claimed that "In four weeks from the time that a declaration of war is heard on our frontier, the whole of Canada will be in our possession." James Madison similarly proclaimed that "[t]he acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching," and Henry Clay boasted, "I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet." A variety of motives contributed to this sentiment. The Rev. McLeod described the war as "extending the principles of representative democracy – the blessings of liberty, and the rights of self-government – among the colonies of Europe." A Virginia newspaper (the Virginia Argus of Richmond) was more frank about the "advantages to be derived from the acquisition" of Canada, including "the suppression of a great deal of smuggling [and] the curtailment...of the British fur trade..." The U.S. had made feeble attempts during the Revolutionary War to invade Canada. In September of 1775, Col. Ethan Alan was taken prisoner during an unsuccessful attempt to capture Montreal. Three months later, Gen. Montgomery led an attack on Quebec during a blinding snowstorm; Montgomery was killed and Gen. Benedict Arnold was wounded. This attack also failed, and half the American forces were killed or wounded. Attempts to invade Canada during the War of 1812 failed even more spectacularly.
www.lutins.org...

US attempt to conquer canada failed spectacularly and USA was defeated by Canada

The Americans' initial ambition was to invade and conquer Canada.
www.cmhg.gc.ca...

lets see , not considering propaganda written in US history books :

Conclusion As in the Vietnam War, the U.S. considered its position at the end of the War of 1812 a draw. In retrospect, both wars could reasonably be considered a loss to this country, having failed in our expansionist goals, having lost ground to the "enemy," and having expended human lives and extraordinary resources for naught.
www.lutins.org...

No just history. Maybe if you actually read enough of history you will actually understand. Start at the Trent Affair.

as usual you peddle the make believe scenario , the canuacks whipped your azz in 1812 and you believe you would have defeated British empire at its peak , when you were in a state of civil war . what a freakin fantasy

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Kombatt98]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Kombatt98]

reply to post by IAF101


Some Americans would rally around the US. I figure quite many will not care one way or the other, being more worried about the next Dancing With the Stars or American Idol. Some on the far left might even be happy to see the state go not realizing what was at stake.

Prior to hostilities in the US civil war, everyone waivered. Secession began while Buchanan was President and it was only months later and after Lincoln was inaugurated that hostilities began. When war did break out even more states seceded. Congress didn't waiver during the civil war due to the fact that the entire Democratic party had removed itself from it. This only left the Republicans at the time who overly hostile to the south. The military did falter at first due to many of its West Point grads going home. It lost some of the best and brightest officers. The military ended up having to bring in a number northern officers who were no longer in service. Again that was a very different time and a very different situation.

America today is a very different nation than it was back then. The world is far different. The whole situation would be very unpredictable. The only certainties out of it would be severe damage to the US economy, energy and defense industries.

Coup d'etat only requires a military junta. There is no need for a single powerful authority figure. Most Western Coups such as in Greece, Turkey, Thailand, South Korea, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina and the failed 1961 coup in France only require a board or committee of officers.

From the point of view of such a junta, the coup would be of the guardian type. In a Guardian Coup the military asserts authority deeming that the civilian government has failed to uphold its oath. In affect the military junta is keeping its oath and protecting against all enemies foreign and domestic. General Franks after retiring gave an implicit warning of such an event if another massive 9-11 scale terror attack occured.

In that type of event they would be holding onto their core values. It would be the civilian government that had failed its oath and duties.

The personnel of the US military are some of the most value and honor oriented people. There is only so much that people bound by value and honor can tolerate before it becomes too much to bear. It would not sacrifice its core values or principles in the name of "union". It would do what was necessary and in accordance with its principles. Because of that I think any attempt at secession would likely be prevented and not necessarily because of any action against secessionist. Prevention would rather involve doing what was necessary to maintain an equilibrium.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by IAF101

More significantly however, the United States Supreme court has already ruled on this matter in Texas V White that despite Texas being a soverign nation, it CANNOT secede from the Union. No state can.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by IAF101]

That's because the Union is meant to be immortal by the Pledge.

"One nation, Under GOD, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all."

The US government will not just let a state leave. They will beat them into submission.

Yea but here's the point lets just say for the moment gov does want to get rid of anyone against there ideals this presents the perfact oppertunity to add a little bleach to the genepool of the united states.

Say we want that guy called falcon out of virginia fine then I will go to the succeeded state of "whatever" so now after revolutionarys are out of the way who's next the christains how about the jews perhaps the muslums or maybe we can round up anyone in a suit that doesnt go along with the state or a attempt to create a superstate.

I have a better idea then that I think we should build a new arena somewhere in the central united states so its fair for all people who want to travel the distance to see a live event and we go right back to good old bloodshead the way it was ment to take place.

With swords spoons knifes and any other thing anyone wants to bring in the more people it kills the better but both sides have to be equally armed. Why were at it lets get a horn from a hockey game and each time the feild gets too full of bodys the horn will sound and several bulldosers will come in and clean off the feild of the arms legs and other body parts and push them off the feild. The speed of the bulldosers will be controlled by push buttons given to people in the arena.

Why were at it why not make a few highly scientific hospitials that can use the body parts of the freshly dead killed people in the arena to stich backtogether the people in need of a organ or body part. Lets take it farther then that why were at it and let the scientists do R&D with people they expirment on with body parts they are only allowed to gather from the feild.

And why were at it we will charge for any live event to pay down excess taxs as well as play the event live on pay per view and anyone that wants to scare there children into submission we will degrade ourselves more then we already have in society and we will give those children front row seats to show them what will happen if they break societys laws.

Why not the problem with this society like any other is its about to fail and everyone knows it why not take the oppertunity and jump on this event to engage in the same thing thats been practiced even in germany lets go right back to ethic cleansing.

How about instead of that we go father then germany did and we only elect people with lower iq's then george bush. That way we can have no accounablity and no responsiblity at the same time and call ourselves the leader of the free world.

If you dont like our society then you can just kill yourselves or jump in our arena. We can also go right back to crusfiying christans, burning witch's, cutting off the beards of muslums and feeding them porn, giving jews pigs blood and forcing them to eat lard where does it stop.

The sad reality is I believe were not that far away from this very event or camps again. The question is how far will the society degrade before we will be at this point I will be really suprised if were not in civil war this year.

Thats my 2 cents for now.

Falcon

reply to post by IAF101





Boy You have no idea about the people from Texas. The people of Texas are loyal to the people of Texas plain and simple. People joke about Texas being a different country and they are damn well right. I live in Louisiana and if Texas left I would be there in a heart beat because the love of Texas still beats in my chest. The Texans in the military if they felt there cause was right would say screw the US government. Now considering that Texas is a very conservative state I would bet that they already feel their cause is right. You liberals also make this out to be a racist thing and say stupid ignorant crap like where were You people during Bush. Well let me tell You we were not happy then and guess what no the economy is imploding during Your new darling messiah. The taxes haven't changed have they? We are still being taxed and guess what the real tax payers are fed up and now its about to boil over. So take Your ignorant comments and shove them where they belong because apparently You have no idea what You are talking about.