The NEW case for Secession ( POLISCI 351C Thesis)

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Obviously your "research" did not include South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, did it?

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

I'm sorry that whoever you used as a source (United Daughters of the Confederacy? Vanguard news network?) lied to you, but.. .well, there it is. Primary source and everything. Not only did South Carolina declare secession for fear of a loss of the institution of slavery in South Carolina, but also because other states were exercising their rights to not be slave states.

And even their ridiculously bad reason... is more reason than the current pro-secessionists have been able to come up with.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Apparently you need to learn your language more.

--Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.--

Go QQ somewhere else.

Cool. Show me that part.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I am not sure how the secessionists are going to keep a new rogue corporate government at bay, with so
many people and politicians wielding pro corporate outlooks...

That is a pickle

Well first hurdle would be getting a majority in the state wanting to secede....Then there would be no excuse to use force since they would not be seceding.

edit on 11-8-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Of course.
The easiest way to secede is to not secede.

Snip and quote out of context much do ya to try and set up a strawman? Sigh...

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Apparently you need to learn your language more.

--Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.--

Go QQ somewhere else.

Cool. Show me that part.

You missed the next part. --but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.--

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


ON the contrary, I did.

Now why did they want to keep slaves?

It is not as cut and dry as you want it to be, and it is far from PC, but the truth is out there.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Don't drink coffee, and do not see how that pertains to the subject.

I never mentioned coffee. It pertains to your post because if you read it, it seems like you were just too excited to hit reply to take the time to actually address any of the things I have actually written. The point you are responding to me to argue is not one I was making.

Unless that was your attempt at a ad hominem.

Hardly but probably because I know what that phrase actually means.

In order to gather support, which will be needed, people have to learn the truth.

Yet you support an essay on states rights to secede when they have none?

It is repeated over and over to break through the brain-washing we have had that it is not a right, as evidenced by people (*cough cough* . . . erroneously claim they have the right to secede . . . *cough cough*).

edit on 8/11/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/11/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

Yeah, how has that been working out for you so far?

It is very simple, if you want to have a scholarly discussion about whether or not states have that right, go at it. If someone wants to just claim it is a fact they have that right, then they need to get going.
Do you stand around talking about how you have to right to do things, or do you just do those things?

I have the right to go out in my front yard, smoke a cig, and look at the stars right now. Tell me you would applaud me if instead of doing that, I wrote an essay explaining to you that I had that right.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...erroneous claim?... ah, so thats your real beef...

No. I have stated my real beef from the get go and repeated it several times now.

ya know, thats just a matter of opinion...

How so? What other laws are just a matter of opinion?

imo, we do have a right to seceed... i dont support it right now because no one has come up with a viable plan for after the legalities and, then, theres the massive likelihood that the usofa would bomb us into submission...

Yeah I do not see any real success in it but whether the states have that right or not hardly seems like something we can just have an opinion on. What happens when my opinion and your opinion on what the law is differs?

...but thats another presumption... there was a time, not so long ago, when most people believed no human would ever go out into space, much less land on the moon... millions of people focused on the probability of going into space and made it happen eventually...

That is totally different. Not believing we would be capable of things currently beyond our imagination is quite different from this. For one thing, secession is not some new, space aged concept that is just so mind boggling I am just finally coming to terms with it. It has been around for a long time. I am familiar with the speeches, petitions, threads, etc. But this is no presumption. This is straight from the authors mouth.

Originally posted by bo12au
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I'm not going to flame you bro, and I didnt say I wanted to seceed from the Union. I was saying in this thread that if States wanted to, they have every legal right to do so. Peace

Originally posted by hawkiye
Snip and quote out of context much do ya to try and set up a strawman? Sigh...

Much?
You tell me.
Was just trying to save space because I know that people can read your original post no matter how I formatted mine. You know my post did not erase your post, right? But so you feel a little better.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Well first hurdle would be getting a majority in the state wanting to secede. Then they could worry about how to go about it. That's why I say an easier option would be to just use that majority to elect officials that would not allow the federal government to over step its constitutional bounds and be willing to enforce it in the state. Then there would be no excuse to use force since they would not be seceding.

edit on 11-8-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Like I said, clearly the easiest way to secede is to not secede. I hope you feel better now.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Apparently you need to learn your language more.

--Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.--

Go QQ somewhere else.

Cool. Show me that part.

You missed the next part. --but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.--

Give it up already. You left out the important part. "but can also involve." That is actually the NEXT part. You know what also means, right?
Ad hom is used to discredit your argument. I simply suggested you were a little hyper but never suggest it had any sway on the validity of any argument you were making.

reply to post by bo12au


we the people of the united states pf america do not need to secede , we need the states to stand up and realize Washington id not part of the 50 states
we need to get the people to understand that dc is not part of any state therefor we move the constitution to say Omaha or somewhere else and take the us back for the citizens
Washington dc is the corporate state so should not control the 50 states only dc and the us territory's should be governed by the corporate stat
the 50us state could band together and dissolve the lawyer created mess that is trying to destroy my once great country
just my 2 cents
add
US Titles and Codes,
in their awkward definitions,
call "DC" the "United States"

The new "United States" includes States such as District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does not include the 50 states united.
i.e. Title 26 Section 7701 Definitions (a) (9) and (10) 42 U.S.C. 405 (2)(c)(vii)

If Texas wants to secede then let them. So how long do you think it will be before they change their name to north Mexico. Anyone who supports this hasn't sat down and thought just how fast Texas will fall flat on it's face after doing so.

Whether you agree or disagree with the idea of secession, any student of history will tell you that maps change over time. If the territorial boundaries of the Roman Empire, British Empire, etc. were in a state of flux, why should Americans think the American empire is any different?

Perhaps the thrust of this thread should not be whether secession should happen, but rather how and when secession will happen. Is it probable a state or group of states may secede within our lifetimes? Will these territories be independent or will they be annexed into Canada or Mexico?

I for one think secession would make everybody worse off and lead to a feudal dark ages where different states and regions will be more preoccupied with trying to fight with one another rather than cooperate, but that does not mean that I think secession will not happen.

the founders expect the patriots of the country to do the right thing

..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... --Declaration of Independence

reply to post by bo12au

You don’t have to look far for confirmation of the public’s failure to comprehend the principles of secession—just check the comments on any blog discussing the issue. There you’ll find the uninformed claiming, “The South lost the war; case closed.” Or, “Only Texas can secede since they were a republic before joining the Union.” Or one of the more frequent foolish utterances, “Secession is un-American and treasonous!”The Zogby polls, along with blogosphere jabber, clearly demonstrate the woeful lack of knowledge by our citizenry regarding their right to a government (as our Declaration of Independence proclaims) “most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Nice opener and certainly spot-on in many ways.

Overall...

The notion of secession has been ingrained in the national psyche as a negative. The concept of state's rights is immediately linked to the worst cases of racial hated of the mid 20th century. And to aggravate the entire condition is our ever growing inability to communicate, to discuss civilly any subject that has the slightest hint of political division.

The result has been, and is, the wholesale destruction of public discourse in exchange for a bitter brand of arguing and bickering that does nothing but divide us even further.

For the last 30 years-or-so, our nation has been reduced intellectually from a sophisticated society that sought to improve itself, to one that embraces the concept that fully half of one's fellow citizens is a form of enemy. To say that we are a house divided unto itself right here and right now, is almost beyond the point of denial.

So, if we find that the subject of secession arrives, we are not so inclined to attempt dissuasion. To the contrary, we sarcastically suggest that such an event would be good for those whom the exiting state leaves behind. You know, just go... and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

How we got here is really not so difficult to identify. Since the 1980s, succeeding administrations from both political wings have all but gutted public education. Those graduating from high school today would not even be able to pass a 6th grade level exam from a decade or so before that. The result has been the previously mentioned non-sophistication that lends itself to being led by political and ideological extremism.

Some of the ramifications of this combined cesspooling of our national attitude has been that more and more information resources on the web are beginning to disallow commenting to news stories. It's just no longer possible to stop the incessant name calling and insulting. There's no effort to share and exchange ideas and possibilities. It's all about the feud... because we are no longer capable of anything else. We don't know how to make a point that doesn't attempt to tear down our opposites.

This is a general trend that is reflected in real-time, real-life society now, as well. There is no tolerance for the person who speaks differently or the neighbor who recognizes a differing faith or political slant. We are egged on by ranting heads on our TVs, as they teach us slogans to be applied like battleaxes rather than an avenue to understanding.

And now, here we are talking about secession.

At this point, it seems inevitable that there will be at least one US state that attempts to exit the union and if it succeeds, more will almost certainly follow. This reality will bring a swift response from Washington that will do nothing more than exacerbate the problem... just as it dd in 1861. It's simply a no-win situation because forcefully attempting to hold on to that which yearns to be free, you only demonstrate the reasoning behind the divorce to begin with.

Whether or not secession is something ever meant to be accessible to the states almost becomes a moot point because our nation is no longer seen as a representation of the original intent. The federal government is already interpreted by many as being in violation of the constitution so, any exit strategy is immediately legitimized. What is and was legal and illegal no longer applies.

Like a sinking ship, it's every man, woman and child for themselves.

If such a fracturing occurs, then you should expect a further degradation as newly independent states seek to merge with others to create small hegemonies and confederations. These may all relink but could just as easily turn against one another over issues of natural resources or politics, and fight regional wars such as those in Europe of centuries past.

Of course, we really don't take a lot of time to think that far ahead.

...

To prove I'm a workin' stiff, I only clicked on this thread because I was curious how Ford's 351 Cleveland engine could be worked into a post about Secession. That being said, I read the whole thing and am going to directly respond to the original post and several responses.

To the original poster: Yes, we have the right and means, but won't do it because the cure for our current disease is going to be worse than simply treating the symptoms. A government is created to ease the decision making burden from the entire populace. A group of like-minded folk find someone to represent them in matters of state. Check, we got that. But the whole POINT is so that we don't have to have every single citizen vote on every single minute thing that goes across the governmental tables. That being said, as the population of our country expands, we get a larger body of representatives. Logical progression means that even THAT body of elected officials will have to find it's OWN, smaller group of representatives. Thats the first problem. There are too many citizens to be governed by a single body of government.

Right now, we're split into two parties, Republicrats and Democrans. Why two? Because they suffocate any competition. There are other parties, but if you don't fall in line with one of the two, you really don't stand a chance. There are, of course, exceptions, but our political system is insane. Use the federal government to abolish itself. Force six parties on the ticket and let none of them be Red or Blue, but shades of violet. Two parties representing the entire US is an idiotic concept.

Seceding from the Union will come at a massive cost. In order to give us 'incentive' to return, there will be import/export penalties, we would no longer be protected by the US Military, and we would no longer be part of the tax distribution network. Not saying that's such a bad thing. Texas can be self-sufficient. Currently, we are being invaded by a foreign power. That may or may not be Mexico's intent to have so many hard-bodied workers in the state, funneling US Currency across the border, but it is a reality. We are educating, protecting, healing, and sustaining a foreign population. I realize that only a part of it is from Mexico, Central and North American illegal immigration make up a higher number, but this is one that simply shouldn't happen and can be stopped. That's the Federal government falling down on the job and a sign of neglect and incompetence. Use that as an excuse, close our Texan borders, allow anyone to leave that wants to, set the government in place, allow anyone to enter that wants to, then simply shut the borders down to the US and work our economic model through it's paces. MIght not work... then again, it might.

What of prisons and Federal establishments? An American Embassy on Texas Sovereign soil sounds insane, but there it is. We would be required to repurchase the land and structures owned by the US Government. It's only sensible as all US Gov property is owned by the people. By seceding, we aren't nullifying the contribution towards acquisition that was made by the non-Texas citizenry. In good faith, we would purchase that property back. Currently, the Texas Army (Yes, we do have our own standing militia), is not equipped or trained well enough to defend our shores and borders from an invading army, nor do we have the infrastructure in place to train them and maintain them for the purpose of national defense. (National. By Seceding we become a nation again.)

By Seceding, we simply take our problem to a more manageable level. The political state will still exist but not on the multi-state federal level. We have six cities in Texas that are more populous than the entire state of Wyoming and Houston, our largest, is more populous than thirteen individual states. Even the original Founding government would have had a difficult time governing Texas. In short, we'll actually have the same problem on a smaller scale. Our president will be the governor, house and senate will still be in place, judges and police officers will still abuse their power, etc...

I have a ton more I could say on the issue, but I'll sum it all up for the tl;dr crowd

The federal government has ingrained itself into every aspect of policy and law that the only way to Secede effectively would be to abolish all government at every level and let the people descend into the fires of anarchy. Think of it as a reset switch. It will show us what's important and what needs to be... but it will come at a high cost. Until the people are prepared for this eventuality, there will be zero chance of secession or even profoundly altering our current government. Those entrenched in power will fight like hell to keep it. Those who fight against them merely want to assume their place and have that power for themselves. The people aren't the problem, the system is. There will be no secession. There will be no abolition of the government. There won't be any drastic changes. You can't give people their freedom. They have to earn it if they want to keep it. We didn't earn ours. The Founders did.

reply to post by bo12au

Friend, you have a very good understanding of the Constitution, and the Confederation, and for that I Star and Flag your post. I have been calling for secession from the Federal Government for years now, how long now have they been lining their own pockets and leaving We the People scraps like a dog? Did the Federal Government not raise unfair, and unlawful taxes on business, so much that many left America and went to more tax friendly countries to operate? Are they obeying what We the People demand from them at any given time?

The right to secede gives the people control, as the ultimate influence, over their government instead of the other way around. It implies a continual assent from the people that, for the moment, this government is the best one we can envision, and if it’s not, we have a right to either change it or form a new one more responsive to, and reflective of, our common needs.Without the lurking threat of secession—the collective right to say we can’t take this anymore—the government, steadily growing and encroaching on the freedom and independence of its citizens, eventually establishes itself as the supreme sovereign authority, to which all citizens must pay homage. Should the threat of secession fail to force the ogres of Washington back into their constitutional cages, the people, with full knowledge of their right to a government better suited to their needs, will once again declare their independence.It’s time to reacquaint the public with their patriotic DUTY to resist a government expanding far beyond its constitutional limitations. .

You said it clear there. Two things We the People have that can be used to remove current government, and install new government, and those are secession from the current Federal Monster, and our many, many guns. America is an armed Nation, unlike many other Nations in revolution right now as I write this. The Libyans, and the Syrians have no personal weaponry, I know this for a fact. I dare say the Egyptians had no guns when they rebelled against their oppressive governments. Revolution has not yet come to America, it hasn't sunk in yet that the Dollar is becoming more and more useless, as it was created out of thin air and have no thing one to back it up. Who was it a few days ago that said, "We won't go into default, we will just print more money!" Well, the printing of more useless money only decreases the value of the money. So, inflation sets in, prices go up, interest rates go up, everything costs more, everyone has less. The Rich keep getting richer, and you all know what happens to the Poor.

#2 – The Constitution does not prohibit States from seceding Our Constitution is simply an agreement between the States, creating an agent (the federal government) to act on their behalf in the performance of eighteen specifically delegated powers. Since this Compact is absent any language speaking to the issue of individual States withdrawing from the agreement, that decision, and the right to do so, is left to the States, and the States alone. The Tenth Amendment to this Constitution clarified and reinforced this concept of the States retaining all unspecified powers.There are some who believe our States can withdraw without demonstrating cause, and that may very well be true, but if not, there is no underlying tenet of contract law requiring a party to remain committed to an agreement that has been repeatedly violated as has our Constitution.

Exactly right. There is not thing one that prohibits the States from seceding from the Union. As you said so aptly, Our Constitution is an agreement, a contract, between the States, and the governing body that they, the States, which are composed of We the People, who have, and hold all powers not freely given to the agent we created. Well I say that contract have been violated by the agent, the Federal Government!
In recent years, the Executive Body of government has sought out and gained more power than they are designed to have in the first place. They have said themselves that Federal Law supersedes State Law, remember the recent fight with Arizona's Governor and the White House over an immigration law that is actually on the books, but is ignored by the Federal Government?

I say We the People, the States in which we all reside, have kept our end of the bargain. We have worked, we have paid our taxes, we have complied with he laws of the land. we have faithfully voted, then watched as elections have been stolen from us. We have faithfully paid our road use taxes, and watched as our roads turned into pot holes, and our bridges became unsafe to cross. We have watched as gasoline prices went up most every year, when I started driving a car, gas cost $0.35 a gallon, you could fill up an Oldsmobile for $9.00. A bottle of soda was a dime. A pack of smokes was a quarter, a candy bar was a nickel. That was not a long time ago, it was the late 1960s.

In Today's world a Poor Man or Woman cannot afford a new car, or a house, hell, they can barely buy groceries for their children. I am a little surprised that TPTB haven't started a "guns for food" program, so they can gather up some of our weapons.

The actions of the central government today bear little resemblance to the limited authority delegated by our Founders in 1787.

Man, you got that right! Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams would roll over in their graves if they could see what American Government has become.
The American government was originally designed to have little power, and little money, and no spending without consent of the people. Every person was a Sovereign, a King or Queen in our own homes. After the War of Northern Aggression, the Civil War to you Yankees, the Original 13th Amendment was conveniently "lost," and a new 14th Amendment was instituted. Here is the text of the Original 13th Amendment:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Does everyone know what that means? In Early America, an Attorney had a Title, "Esquire." That was a "Title of Nobility" no matter how you look at it, it places an "Esquire" above the common man, and the Sovereign man. How many of our Government Leaders today are Attorneys, Esquires, and some even Knighted by the British Queen? After all, in essence, America is still a British Colony!
1785 President George Washington, in a letter written to the Reverend G. W. Snyder: "Reverend, Sir, it was not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati -- the principles of Jacobinism -- had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am." Shortly before he died, President Washington was well aware that the Adam Weishaupt radical brand of Freemasonry, the Illuminati, had spread its poison to America. Our Government, not all of them now, but most, want this:
Novus Ordo Seclorum New World Order Globalization And folks, they will have it if we let them.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Now why did they want to keep slaves?

It is not as cut and dry as you want it to be, and it is far from PC, but the truth is out there.

edit on 8/11/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

That is rather cryptic...

I think they wanted to keep slaves because they felt entitled, they felt the slaves were inferior and because slaves engage in free labor which creates a higher profit margin for the owners because it reduces overhead.

I am not a P.C person myself, what am I missing?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by hawkiye
Snip and quote out of context much do ya to try and set up a strawman? Sigh...

Much?
You tell me.
Was just trying to save space because I know that people can read your original post no matter how I formatted mine. You know my post did not erase your post, right? But so you feel a little better.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Well first hurdle would be getting a majority in the state wanting to secede. Then they could worry about how to go about it. That's why I say an easier option would be to just use that majority to elect officials that would not allow the federal government to over step its constitutional bounds and be willing to enforce it in the state. Then there would be no excuse to use force since they would not be seceding.

edit on 11-8-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Like I said, clearly the easiest way to secede is to not secede. I hope you feel better now.

You apparently need reading comprehension lessons. I clearly said if you have a majority interested in seceding that another easier "option to" secession would be to use that majority to simply force the feds into their constitutional bounds. That option is clearly different from the option of secession itself. So your statement of "the easiest way to secede is to not secede" is completely non-nonsensical and totally irrelevant to what I said.

From the standpoint of a thesis for what I think is an upper division university class, this paper needs serious help. First, you need a proof reader. Your grammar is certainly not at the college level. You confuse singular and plural. You use the wrong prepositions. (You DO know the diffference between "to" and "too" don't you?) Your comma splices are terrible as if you just threw them in the sentences randomly. People say grammar doesn't matter. Yes, it does. This is a college paper, not a typical post. Give it to someone else to go through.

Second, the paper is just a rant. It's a point of view with precious few references. Your Intro starts in the middle of the issue rather than sets the tone for the rest of the essay explaining what you will be discussing. You show no particular knowledge of the issue of secession and yet there is a large body of literature on it with which you have apparently no familiarity at all. At one point you state that the states can do what they "damn" well please (a paraphrase because I can't get back to it at the momnent.)

Really? That's in a college paper? That's your idea of an erudite academic argument?

Next, there is an opposing side. In a debate you need to know what that opposing side is even if it's just to refute it. You show no evidence of knowing about it. I don't think you did much research at all. At its heart the paper is extremely simplistic and biased. It shows a political point of view, of course, but it leaves too much out to be considered a treatment of the subject.

I DO think this point of view is academically defensible. It's possible for you to make a good case for secession; it's just that you aren't doing it. This paper is OK as a freshman English composition essay where standards are different, but it is not OK for an upper division paper on a specific topic. I'd give you a "C" and wring my hands doing it. If your class does a split grade for "topic/technical" I'd give you a C/D, but there's no reason you can't clean the technical side up before you turn it in.

Given the deplorable state of academia today and the relative preparedness of students, I suspect you'll get a better grade than I would give you simply because no one cares any more and so many others will do worse.

the agenda driven puppet gubbers that supposedly vote according to party lines has only to vote for more money and it magically appears.
they send more unfederal reserve notes overseas but not much here in the states.
while our infrastructures is badly in need of repairs billions are spent in other countries.
our borders are transparent.
illegals are costing us billions and yet they do nothing.
the mexie cartel is inching their way north of the border and yet nothing is being done.
they don't give a rip about jobs going overseas - no penalties.
(check out the tata program)

9/11 is used as an artificial catalyst to justify any law they want.

Seceded states could coin their own silver certificates as in JFK's e/o 11110.
decide if they need an unconstitutional irs to collect unconstitutional taxes.
they would have their own laws and each state would be unique, which implies, that if you don't like Callie move to Colorado.

i really don't see any negatives.