What Do Modern Secessionists Want?

That is pretty funny. I always appreciate a comedy interlude.

Somehow I think ever since the 1812 war the US military secretly had been eager for a chance to redeem themselves and for anyone who had read about how damn bad the leadership of General Hull happen to had been you can understand the feelings as we should had overrun Canada with little problems during the 1812 war.

Oh here is some informations concerning the counter plans of those Canadians of the same time period IE between the two world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red called Defense Scheme No. 1 on April 12, 1921. Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With no hope of holding these objectives, the idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for Imperial allies to arrive with reinforcements

OP

They want their state to be free of the federal government. That is what seceding is all about. State Rights are important for freedom.

When the fed has so much power to force people to buy healthcare so that big business insurance companies can be rich we know we have a probelm and the person who brought this bill is the one who is a greater problem.

It is ironic that he came in on the premise of free healthcare and gives us the opposite.

answer: a functioning US government.

State rights and freedom what a damn joke as I am old enough to remember when state rights was used to force men and women to the back of the bus, to denial them the rights to an equal education, to vote, to married across racist lines, to even be in some towns after sunset,to shop in certain stores or to stay in certain hotels and so on.......

State rights as far as the US is concern stand for anything but freedoms.

It in fact took the military forces of the US up to troops with fixed bayonets to allowed children repeat children to go to a public school and I saw all this unfolding on live TV.

And so State Rights are forever invalidated?

I suppose Dredd Scott v Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson forever invalidated the authority of the Supreme Court, and FDR's internment of Japanesse citizens forever invalidated presidential executive orders.

No. The point was that state's rights was used as an excuse to justify inexcusable behavior.

Then and now.

State rights is a tools for bigots to complained and whine about the Federal government enforcing the rights of all citizens and that is just as true in 2012 as it where in 1960s or 1880 for that matter.

So yes the whole concept is invalid given how it always had been use in our country history and is still being used by the same kind of people that had always hid behind it. It is a code word in the same class as the white sheets of the KKK.

State rights now is being used to target people with brown skins and to interfere with the rights of the poor to vote and that would make the bigots of the 1960s proud.

Here is the state right people in the past.



Here is the level of force needed to get a few black children into a school over the objection of the state righters of the late 1950s

You,

There needs to be a balance; which you seem to ignore. Child labor laws, social benefits such as "free" education, border security, social security, MediCare, ObamaCare, minimum wage, OSHA, public transportation - including rail, highways, bridges, and communication. Without which no state can survive on their own.

I would guess, on an emotional level, a homogeneous society would be discerned, if it was studied.

And, hypothetically, if after a few decades, the new federation proved to be more economically successful than the original federation, I would also guess that more than one person of color would emigrate to the new federation.

I am a citizen of the US and will defense the US but I have not such feelings for the political subdivisions that happen to be states or even lower government subdivisions such as counties or cities.

The idea that states have the first call on the loyalty of citizens should had been burn out during the time period of the civil war.

I had live in four states in my life and may live in more before my life is over but none of those states had the same call on my loyalty as the Federal government does.

Lee may had feel that he was a citizen of Virgina first but I surely do not feel that I am a citizen of Florida first.

As a second class citizens compare to the whites somehow I do not think so.

Virtually everything under the sun has been used as an excuse to justify inexcusable behavior. You're engaging in selective morality to justify a political position.

Thank Goodness you don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Sorry but the vast percent of the people who had make state rights arguments in the history of this country had done so to try to interfere with the federal government using it powers to protect the rights of minorities.

States rights had been the code words for bigots for well over a hundred and fifty years now and counting.

Governor Wallace defending state rights at the university door.

Obama have four more years to perhaps get one or more appointments to the SC thank god.

Perhaps his appointments will make my sitting on the court a happy idea for you compare to real life.

I agree with BillRM on this subject (not that my opinion counts for anything).

I heard the phony states rights arguments to defend Jim Crow as I was growing up. Still makes me sick. Those same people were heavily recruited to join the Republican Party by the GOP leadership, beginning with Barry Goldwater and jerks like Phyllis Schafly and Pat Buchanon.

When I was in my early preteens, my white Texan parents (who were supporting Eisenhower for President) attended a Republican precinct convention during one of those Presidential election years. They were the only whites there. Most of those black Texans were eventually driven out of the Republican Party by conservatives who sided with white Southern conservative so-called "Democrat" segregationists to defend racial discrimination against black Americans.

The conservative John G. Tower was the first Texas Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction in a special election runoff in 1961 that pitted him against conservative Democrat William Blakely, who was a dyed-in-the-wool segregationist. Tower's voting record on civil rights and other race-related bills turned out to be EXACTLY IDENTICAL to that of the Southern conservative segregationist Democrats. In other words, he voted exactly the way Blakely would have voted! (Incidentally, Tower owed his victory in the runoff election to liberal Democratic voters who were opposed to Blakely.)

My wife, who voted for Mitt Romney last week, was a Republican until just a few months ago. She's now an independent because after all these years she finally got sick and tired of all the white racist bigots who found a home in her party. She got tired of the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, and Haley Barbour.

Why not? The state cannot do it on their own until they seceed. At that point they will not only have the power but the responsiblity of those things, that they feel are important.

It will be a consequence of thier actions but they may feel that the consequence of not acting is worse. I think I would tend to agree since they can have the chance to do all that and even do it better.

Enacting programs and laws on smaller scales that are not national would be benificial to the many types of groups that prefer to have their government run things differently. Forcing the whole US to conform to a standard when it is not necessary can be a detriment to the liberties of those in states that want their rights to excercised differntly.

I will not give my life to the Federal governemnt. They do not deserve anyones life. The people of america, the people that I love, are the people who deserve my protection. It is not about what is right politically between the states or the federal government. It is about the future of freedom, life and rights for the ones I love. That is what it was for many in the civil war. It was the few rich and the high in the civil war that concerned themselves with slavery. In the end no government has my loyalty. They owe their loyalty to the people they govern. You are looking at it backwards.

The states have little history concerning protecting freedoms of the people.