What Do Modern Secessionists Want?

so these secessionist states aren't going to have governments


to paraphrase a wise man

Anarchy for the USA
It's coming sometime, maybe

States do not have concern. The people of the state do. If they do not support the freedoms of people it is because the people of the state are giving them up. I will secede as that is my freedom to choose or not choose and if I cannot then I will accept the choice of the others to not. Freedom is not just mine but shared. I would rather share it among a few then the many in the nation as my voice will be less heard when the nations starts to make decisions for me instead of my state.

States have stood up for freedoms of individuals as more of lately like the recent occurance of forcing us to by medical insurance by the federal government and the states taking it to court. They stood up in washington state to support gay marriage and allow for the use of marjiauna instead fo sending people to jail over such minor things, while the federal government opposes them.

Likely they will form their own union.

I would love to see the southern border states being independent and then having the Latins within and the Mexico army without retaking their former territories.

Love then to see the southern whites then treated as they had treated the people of Mexican descend with anyone with a white skin needing to show paperwork on demand and treated as second class Mexican citizens.

I can tell from what you wrote that you don't live there, don't care about the destruction of mexico attacking and killing millions of people innocent or otherwise all so you can excerise your hate. Your ill will shows you to be a person of as much lack of character as the racists who hate mexicans. In the end, your lack of concern shows your ignorance.

If you do not mind, tell me why it is okay if the Texans are sentenced to death but the mexicans are considered so ill treated as to have to "show paperwork"? Do you not know that Mexico itself protects its southern border with as much or even greater aggression. Do you not know that if you do not break the law you do not have to show ID? Did you know that anyone who is speeding, or breaking the law, has to show ID, not just mexicans?

I never stated the Mexicans was a wonderful people still it would be highly amusing to have the border states that was seized by force from Mexico return to them due to craziness of the tea bagger leaving the union and the protection of the US military.

After all in 1840 a foreign army invaded them and the people living in those areas found themselves not even second class citizens in that foreign nation little better then the slaves that the new conquistadors brought with them.

I guess that the Mexicans should feel grateful that the elements in congress that wished to seize all of Mexico did not win and we just settle for a few states worth of lands instead.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Really?

What about the Free States in the 1800's?

You're a bigot BillRM. The target of your bigotry just happens to be Southerners.

and a very common problem that is....one that is rarely even talked about. I guess the South losing the war makes dismissing and insulting them now fine.

Texas was attacked by Mexico in a civil war and never the US.
Texas won the civil war and became its own country.
Texas joined the US for protection and the Mexican-American war started.

Let see Mexico unwisely allow Americans to settle in Northern Mexico IE Texas and with some uncover aid from the US manger to seized that part of Mexico.

I always found it interesting that half repeat half of the US army forces at the then Mexico border was listed as AWOL on the books during the Texas/Mexico war and yet they mostly came back afterward and was not punish for being AWOL.

After Texas became part of the US we send the whole damn US army at the time in 1840 to seized more land from Mexico under general Scott with Robert E Lee as a colonel and Grant as a lieutenant.

We force the Mexico to turn over more lands that ended up as states and part of congress wish to had seized all repeat all of Mexico at the time but most of congress did not wish to add that many people of Spanish decent to our nation.

Shame that the schools do not teach real history.

Hawkeye the whole US not just the southerns went into Mexico in 1840 and I hold the tea baggers in contempt that are proving themselves the modern version of the KKK and the state governments and the people who allow their state governments to treat people of Mexico descent with so must contempt.

Then on top of that they are making noises about once more leaving the union.

BULLSHIT.......


Here is some history that is not taught in American high schools for the most part.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

Mexican–American War From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Mexican–American War

The Mexican–American War, also known as the Mexican War or the U.S.–Mexican War, was an armed conflict between the United States of America and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.

Combat operations lasted a year and a half, from spring 1846 to fall 1847. American forces quickly occupied New Mexico and California, then invaded parts of Northeastern Mexico and Northwest Mexico; meanwhile, the Pacific Squadron conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast further south in Baja California. Another American army captured Mexico City, and the war ended in victory of the U.S.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified the major consequence of the war: the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States forgave $3.5 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the loss of Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border.

American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast had been the goal of President James K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party.[4] However, the war was highly controversial in the U.S., with the Whig Party and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed. Heavy American casualties and high monetary cost were also criticized. The political aftermath of the war raised the slavery issue in the U.S., leading to intense debates that pointed to civil war; the Compromise of 1850 provided a brief respite.

In Mexico, terminology for the war include (primera) intervención estadounidense en México (United States' (First) Intervention

Here is some more information including that there was calls to annex all of Mexico at the time.

As it was we took half of Mexico..........!!!!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk

Peace: the Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoPolk sent diplomat Nicholas Trist to negotiate with the Mexicans. Lack of progress prompted the President to order Trist to return to the United States, but the diplomat ignored the instructions and stayed in Mexico to continue bargaining. Trist successfully negotiated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which Polk agreed to ratify, ignoring calls from Democrats who demanded that all Mexico be annexed. The treaty added 1.2 million square miles (3.1 million square kilometers) of territory to the United States; Mexico's size was halved, while that of the United States increased by a third. California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming were all included in the Mexican Cession. The treaty also recognized the annexation of Texas and acknowledged American control over the disputed territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico, in turn, received $15 million. The war claimed fewer than 20,000 American lives but over 50,000 Mexican ones.[51] It may have cost the United States $100 million.[52] Finally, the Wilmot Proviso injected the issue of slavery in the new territories, even though Polk had insisted to Congress and in his diary that this had never been a war goal.

I live in the south. Right in the middle. If the 'southerners' would quit waving the confederate flag in every black person's face they may get better treatment themselves. Just like any group of people there are many facets. There are many fine southern folk who appreciate their heritage and are in fact very good people. There are also many who aren't so fine, just as it is in the north also. I am tired of the labels. The real truth is the south is not about to leave the union. Fortunately, there are enough of the good people in positions of power to not let that happen. Texas, now that's another story and one I am not familiar with.

"I always found it interesting that half repeat half of the US army forces at the then Mexico border was listed as AWOL on the books during the Texas/Mexico war and yet they mostly came back afterward and was not punish for being AWOL."

Texas was not part of teh country so they did not defend it.

"After Texas became part of the US we send the whole damn US army at the time in 1840 to seized more land from Mexico under general Scott with Robert E Lee as a colonel and Grant as a lieutenant."

Exactly, Texas was now part of the US and so they could now legitimatly defend it. It is often a contigency for getting defence. It requires an agreement or for the state to be a part of the US.

"
We force the Mexico to turn over more lands that ended up as states and part of congress wish to had seized all repeat all of Mexico at the time but most of congress did not wish to add that many people of Spanish decent to our nation."

Land is often seized in war. It is part of the process. Offence to defend.

Perhaps you should start a thread on the american indian war?

Although, as you say, Mexico thought of Texas as part of Mexico. Texas did not ansd even established a government, showing complete independence from Mexico. Mexico failed to stop the rebellion and Texas was now its own country. It is a country now seperate in all reality, whether or not Mexico wants to give it up.

Hmm strange how you will not address the fact that we seized half of Mexico in our conflict that was suppose to be over which river will mark the border of Texas.

In fact we kept marching into Mexico deeper and deeper in order to force the Mexican army to reacted and there was concerns that the Mexicans would not reacted and give us the excuse needed to have a war where we seized half their nation.

General/president Grant in his autobiography stated that he consider the invasion of Mexico a shameful act.

Let see if I can find his words................



To sum up this was similar to Germany invasion of Poland at the start of WW2 the only real difference is that we got away with it and turn a large percent of Mexico into five and a half states not counting Texas.

Now Grayman if the tea party fools someone talk the populations of some of those six border states into leaving the union and Mexico would then take that as a chance to recapture at least part of the territory we stolen from them why should most of the people still in the US care or not even finding such an outcome amusing?