Modern-Day Secessionists Will Hold a Conference on Leaving the Union

[Ozymanithrax]

Modern-Day Secessionists Will Hold a Conference on Leaving the Union

Here come the new Green Mountain Boys. The Middlebury Institute, a think tank devoted to the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination, is planning the First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington, Vt.

More than a dozen secessionist organizations are likely to send representatives to the gathering on November 3 and 4, the director of the institute, Kirkpatrick Sale, said. The room at the Wyndham Burlington hotel can hold about 50 people, he said. The organizers have picked the right state for this radical gathering: Vermont was an independent republic between 1777 and 1791.

"Vermont has a very strong self-identity," Mr. Sale said, and added that New England states were talking about secession around the time of the War of 1812.

Why secession? "It's the only principled, moral way to go," Mr. Sale said. The goal is not to take over any national government but to "simply absent ourselves from it," he added.

Should we let them go? Splitting up the US would be an economic disaster, even if it could be managed peacefully.

[Ardent15]

1. I'd be happy with letting Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma go

[geek tragedy]

8. Nebraska have Obama an EV. Can't give up on them.

Too many national parks in ID, UT, and WY to let them go, and KS is the turf of Sebelius.

But, fuck Oklahoma. Give them to Mexico.

[Ardent15]

9. I was (half) joking

[a la izquierda]

18. Hahaha...

f- you right back, New Yorker, complements of a born and raised Jersey girl, now living in the state of Oklahoma. We Oklahoma Democrats really sat on our asses and did nothing last election season.
:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

82. You boosted Obama to almost a full 1/3 of the vote there.

W00t!!!!

Maybe someday you'll elect a Democrat to Congress (David Boren doesn't count).

[a la izquierda]

99. Get over yourself, Jack.

And regionalists like you aren't worth my time. You don't get to determine what Democrats do and don't count (I'm sure all of the people, including Native Americans, in eastern Oklahoma appreciate your sentiment).
I've already wasted too much time on you.
Get bent.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. Thanks jack_, I live here (NE) and we gave part of our vote to Obama, thanks for noticing.

I just love region-bashing and state-bashing. It avoids so many troublesome aspects of conversation - LIKE THINKING.

[Ardent15]

17. I was joking

Stop taking everything so goddamn seriously.

[Maru Kitteh]

77. Sure. You're right. It's just me.

And thanks for your concern.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Will Palin be the keynote speaker, gosh darn it.

[sunnybrook]

3. Any word on whether the Palins will be attending?

[aquart]

4. No. We aren't letting them go.

They clearly have no notion how to run a government. As for deciding to leave NOW? Fucking traitors.

[originalpckelly]

12. Who are we to dictate to people whether they should be a part of the union or not?

Shouldn't participation in the union be a voluntary matter? Shouldn't participation in any form of government be based upon the consent of the governed?

[aquart]

16. Anarchist.

No, honey, we don't dissolve the union because a few idiots have a snit.

[originalpckelly]

52. How can a government be just if it doesn't have the consent of the governed?

Didn't the Brits have a right to keep us in their empire?

[Ozymanithrax]

25. That is a Constitutional Question...

It was settled by the Civil War and several court cases after the Civil War. States are not simply allowed to leave becasue they don't like the idea of a Democrat of color in the White House.

[originalpckelly]

53. As we all know, Vermont is a hot bed for the KKK and other white supremacist groups.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Texas v White, 1871 that pretty much settled it

[originalpckelly]

54. How do you think the british would have ruled on our declaration of independence?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. That's why that was a revolution, aka war of independence

if Texas went to war in 1871 and won their war of independence that be a different story

They didn't

So legally the only way any state can leave the union is by force of arms

Personally not saying that's not possible, it is, but I'd not want to live through that

Wars are bad, civil wars are worst

[originalpckelly]

68. That's not how it's been going in history of late.

Non-violent revolutions are slowly becoming the norm, as they should be. Violence is stupid, revolutions take place in the minds of the people, when you change someone's thinking, you can change their behavior and eventually the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. I hate to point this out but for every orange revolution

we have had a civil war, or in rare cases (or not so rare) genocide

As is the US has been getting peaceful revolutions every so often (like a generation or so) but the breakup will NOT be peaceful

I mean case you missed this Savage and now the Manity have been asking what kind of VIOLENT revolution people want

Scoff all you want by the way

[Chisox08]

64. That was the predominate view up until the Civil War

The people felt that the states entered the voluntarily and the could leave it at will. The northern states threatened to leave the union a couple of times during the early 1800's.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I wish this was a joking matter, but it isn't

[Ozymanithrax]

27. No Joke at all.

The last time this was attempted we fought the civil war over the issue. Constitutionally, there is no way for a state to opt out. I believe that Texas tried and lost in court, (Texas v. White). The decision was that a state can not leave the Union. So, short of a Constitutional Convention, a change in the Constitution, or a full blown Civil War, I don't think that there is a peaceful dissolution to the problem.

[IDemo]

6. Motto: "Stepping forward ...... INTO THE PAST!"

Apologies to Firesign Theatre.

[Rick Myers]

14. Great reference!!!

Don't Crush That Republican, Hand Me the Pliers!!!

[wtbymark]

7. I used to live in Vermont and..

this debate of the 'second republic of Vermont' has been going on for at least the past 50 years, books written, papers published, legislation even brought to the floor in Montpellier. Even though Vermonters are vehemently independant and constantly bring lawsuits against the federal govt and neighboring states - ain't gonna happen. It's a fantasy born out of the thought that Vermonters feel they're still owed for the victory in Saratoga (which turned the revolutionary war our way) - I'm not kiddin ya.

[Johnyawl]

11. They can go anytime they want...

...they just can't take any real estate with them.

[Ardent15]

13. Huh. I thought New Hampshire was more libertarian....

...with all that "Live Free or Die" stuff.

[originalpckelly]

10. This is not an assbackwards southern state...

who wants to keep slavery, it's Vermont.

More power to them, America is too big as a political unit. 300 million people cannot have democracy.

[undergroundpanther]

33. Agree

Power is too remote from the people in a country this huge.Democracy in a true sense cannot be managed in this country when wealth and power isolates the political power from us. And...
I'd be happy if all the fundies and repug assholes went away formed their own shit hole and left the rest of us alone.

[Somawas]

41. Please.

Go fuck yourself. The motivation for wanting to secede is pretty much irrelevant.

And your attitude is bigoted.

[tnlefty]

46. Assbackwards southern state. You do realize that in Oct. a couple of

years ago, the reps of the Middlesbury Institute attended a meeting in Chattanooga, TN, and were in cahoots with the likes of the Southern League? The Alaska Independence Party was represented there, too. But don't let your 'it's a southern thing' blind you to the fact that nuts of all stripes and locales will band together for nefarious purposes.

And no, I don't think that what they're trying to get up to is a good thing for anyone. C'est la vie.

[originalpckelly]

55. Without the consent of the governed, a government is not just.

Even if they were to get a small parcel of land to rule themselves independently, they still have the inalienable right to choose their government.

Of course, this is a nation that thinks it has the right to tell foreign countries on the other side of Earth what to do, so I suppose arguing for American self-determination (see Sinatra Doctrine) is not going to go over well.

Arrogance made our nation what it is, and it shall be the cause of our fall. America is an empire, and it's time to bring the empire down.

[tnlefty]

63. And this has exactly what to do with the Middlebury Institute

and the groups that they play footsie with? Google The Southern League and then visit the Southern Poverty Law Center's website to get the down and dirty on them. Basically, their endgame is a return to serfdom (slavery) and a strict (in their own making) form of christian theocracy. I'm not gonna be friendly to a group from VT who is playing footsie with this group, and, yes, they do know who they're dealing with band of shit heads, just because they're from VT.

Assholes all, I say.

[originalpckelly]

71. I'm not defending them per se, but the general principle.

People have the right to revolution, in fact in New Hampshire their constitution specifically gives them that right, if memory serves.

We have the inalienable right to overturn corrupt and inhumane systems, though, only through non-violent action.

[tnlefty]

80. And normal Americans try to do that in the voting booth, when

the votes aren't corrupted. The people have the right to a general strike, but Americans don't seem to deem that necessary to date.

BTW, The Southern League, and, again, the Middlebury Institute is aware of who they're playing footsie with, doesn't have a problem with violence. Oh, I think they're all traitors to the nation. And I would suggest caution in perpetuating these ideas. I've heard people around me that I thought were normal screeching about 'a race war.'

I must ask, is this something that you REALLY want?

[originalpckelly]

84. I'm feeling particularly tired tonight, so not tonight.

But it's not really up to us.

The problem here is that the system is so dysfunctional that it's going to happen. Even if I were to disappear off the face of the earth, it would still happen.

Only, I'm deeply worried that if it happens to late in the game, it will be violent because people will be full of more rage against the system.

That's why I'm making the case now, when people are outraged, but not full of rage. Only if the inevitable conclusion to this empire is guided the right way, and non-violent methods used to cause it's downfall, will it go well in the long run. Right now it's like surfing a wave, you can either make it to shore and not fall off, or we can fall right into the ocean, and into the mouths of a blood thirsty shark. You just wait, we're at 1929, not 1932. They tried to overthrow Roosevelt, and today it's probably more likely a business plot could occur and actually succeed. That's what I'm worried about.

[terisan]

49. Vermont is the least diverse state in the US. Possibly de facto racist?

I have wondered why Vermont does not take some positive steps to increase the diversity of its population.

[Xithras]

19. The Russian situation comes to mind.

In 1985 the Soviet Union was the second most powerful nation on Earth, but an economic slowdown was causing unemployment and widespread discontent, the war in Afghanistan was grinding on and causing the people to lose confidence in their military leadership, and a fall in domestically produced exports was undermining their ability to grow financially. People lost faith in their government, and as a result lost any personal loyalty to their country.

Four years later, 78% of the people in the USSR said in an independent poll that the USSR needed to be "fixed", but that they wouldn't support ending it or breaking it apart. The nationalist voices wanting to break the nation apart were seen by the majority of Soviet citizens as an annoying minority. A few months later they elected a leader with a clear majority who promised to fix the country and make life better for its people. A year after that, the nation ceased to exist.

A nation can go from stable and supported by its people, to a broken collection of republics, in a frighteningly short amount of time. History has plenty of examples of nations that went from "powerful" to "history book" in under a decade, and economic collapse is often the harbinger.

[originalpckelly]

56. This is the beggining of the fall of the American Empire.

Empires go to Afghanistan to die, as it takes a ton of hubris to think one can dictate to such a remote place, how they shall live their lives.

[mdmc]

20. FREEDOM!

[Mr. Hyde]

21. I can see the US breaking up into regions but I don't see individual states surviving separately

I think it makes more sense to retain the union but get rid of the federal government as we know it as it is incapable of acting as a representative democracy in its current form. There is simply no way that a two party system can represent a nation as divided as America. In its current form, it can only lead to violence and, ultimately, tyranny. Of course, there's no way anything is going to change so I'm pretty much resolved to that inevitability.

[struggle4progress]

24. Your life will be controlled even more by corporations if such a break-up occurs

[Mr. Hyde]

26. I disagree. A major source of their power has to do with the concentration of power in DC

a location that is 2,000 miles away from the people being "represented". By moving govt. closer to the people, a greater degree of power and control can be exerted over the govt. by the people. Who are you more likely to listen too, the angry mob 2,000 miles away or the angry mob 2 miles away?

[terisan]

48. I think it is time for a less powerful central government. nt

[originalpckelly]

59. It has, it is no mistake that more and more matters are of federal jurisdiction.

It costs less to comply with one set of laws, than the various laws of the various states.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Ah a fan of the 10th amendment movement

:-)

:hi:

Texas v White, read about

[Mr. Hyde]

32. Not really. Sometimes, however, financial realities overrule judicial decisions.

We're just one run on the banks shy of a complete financial meltdown in America and throughout western civilization. Things that were unimaginable just a few years ago now have to be considered as real possibilities. That includes a soviet style break up of our country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. That is part of the fall of Empire, and some of us have seen this coming for

years

That said, this is NOT YET 1934, the year the runs on the banks actually happened

Sadly, the federal guv'ment has been highly dysfunctional since people who don't believe in government have been in charge, for the last 30 years to larger or smaller extents.

I know, history ain't the strong suit of most Muricans, but we are entering New Deal II... the first one saved capitalism from itself, and the second one is liable to do the same... and save the republic in the process. It might even change your opinion of them bad feddies

[Mr. Hyde]

40. I am one of those people

who believes that it was WW2 that saved our asses as much as anything. FDR was a great president but it was his leadership in that epic war that pulled us out of the depression more than his economic programs prior to the war. I am a student of history btw. and, just so you know, we did have a run on the banks quite recently and that has a lot to do with why we are where we are right now.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8805.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. And you 'd be wrong

WW II actually had a small role

The data is clear on this, the depression of '37 came from pulling the foot off the pedal

If they had not done that the US would have been completely out before '41 rolled around

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum, one reason the GOP opposed entry into WW II was that it would slow recovery

After the war, they used that as an excuse for the recovery since the New Deal could not have anything to do with this, Partly the GOP is allergic to spending money unless it involves blowing stuff off and killing people (as long as they don't have to risk their skin in the process)

Guess how much money we've spent over the last eight years in Iraq\Afghanistan? See that stimulus bill

Why are they opposed to the stimulus? They KNOW it works, they're off any significant power for more than a generation, Would quite not say two since Modern Muricans are even more memory challenged than they used to

Yeah I know, way too much inside historical baseball

[Enthusiast]

44. And you are simply incorrect.

It was public works and other programs that saved us from the Republican Great Depression. Don't be bringing Reich Wing talking points in here.

[originalpckelly]

67. And where are we now? We are right back in the Great Depression.

What the fuck good did it do?

Without changing the actual problem, the fact that we have a bunch of people at the top of this country sapping productivity from the people, without giving them anything but economic uncertainty and subservience in return, we will end up in the same place again.

Inherent in this form of government, which is a representative republic, not a democracy, is the prevalence of public apathy. I have concluded after studying a nation such as Denmark, that the reason their system works so well is the wide involvement of a large portion of the population in government. If government is corrupt, people on the dole or in the public sector suffer. In Denmark, almost 40% of the population is in government and 50% of their income is taxed, with an addition VAT of 25%.

If you depended on government for your income, you'd have a tangible reason to care if it is corrupt, as corruption usually saps the productive capacity of an economy/system.

We need to keep a free market, but involve the population at large in the government. The continuing argument against "direct democracy" is that it would be too much work for people to do. This forgets that the duties of government are only carried out by 1% of the population, at least in the USA. That means, we'd only have to use 1% of our total time on the affairs of government (though, in reality, it would probably be higher, maybe 10%.)

Only by directly involving people in government can we avoid public apathy, which is the driving force behind regualtory capture.

(Regulatory capture is the theory based upon historical analysis of regulation in the United States, specifically the Interstate Commerce Commission and its regulation of the railroads, that over time as public apathy sets in, the rich and powerful business interests will buy off regulators.)

See more on regulatory capture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. If you care to read Jefferson, you'd soon realize that what you described

is EXACTLY what he and the rest wanted, a fully involved citizenry

That said so the guilded age was followed by the progressive era which was followed by the 1920s which was followed by the new deal, which was followed by the 1950s, which was followed by the peaceful revolution of civil rights, which was followed by Watergate and the Reagan revolution

See a pattern here? When the people get involved things change for the good. When the people become apathetic, well you know how that goes

This will be an activist era, which will be followed by an age of apathy

Good luck in breaking that cycle

[originalpckelly]

73. The system is an incomplete market with unmatched forces.

The citizenry is supposed to give a shit about government, but they do not actually take part in carrying out the duties of government.

You have it right, though, this is a cycle, in much the same way that there is an econmic cycle.

It's all about the time it takes the system to adapt to feedback. In a large system with unmatched forces, a system in which there is a force in one direction (in this case the force of public apathy) and the force that should match it and correct it (involvement in government) but does not due to some flaw in the system's structure, there is an extended period where a bubble forms, only to pop all at once and have a massive wave of self-correction occur.

That's what's happening both politically and economically in America. Our political and economic units are are so big, individuals are nothing to the system, and the inertia against adaptation exponentially higher than it would be in smaller units.

We cannot avoid business cycles or political cycles, but we can minimize their size/duration.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Them were the arguments also made by Northern states in the 1820s

and later on by the Confederacy

How did that go?

By the way I blame the citizenry to a large extent

[originalpckelly]

61. The motivations of that group are suspect, but the general idea is not.

While all laws of the federal government are supreme to those of the states, it does not mean all matters should be the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is, however, unmistakably clear why the right is pushing for this stuff, they don't like someone black being President.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. Whether you break into regions or individual states in irrelevant.

(1) It isn't constitutional.
(2) Bad government can sit next door to your house as well as 2000 miles away. It is the peopel we elect and the institutions we allow that make it a bad government.

[terisan]

51. Regions make more sense than states. Possibly New England can become a region. California

could be its own region.

[Marr]

23. Why don't they just leave the Union as individuals? Pack up and move

out. Go. Away.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. These people like the US, they don't like us.

They just don't like Obama, Democrats, Obama, liberals, Obama, progressives, and did I mention Obama.

[Mr. Hyde]

35. we were all ready to separate a few years ago too for similar reasons.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. Being separate people doesn't mean we should be a broken nation.

The US can handle diversity, though many individuals can not.

[Politicalboi]

31. I hear

Club Gitmo will have room for those who want to leave. A 3 hour tour. George W Bush as Gilligan, Rush Limpballs the Skipper, Michelle Malkin as Ginger, Michelle Bachman as Mary Ann, Kay Bailey Hutchenson as Mrs. Howell, Pat Buchanan as Mr. Howell and William Kistol as the Professor. In this wacky version of Gilligan's Gitmo. Don't start the Revolution without me.

[autorank]

34. Vermont lost more citizens in Iraq per capita than any other state

DEATH RATE IN IRAQ WAR BY STATE
http://www.dailyyonder.com/iraq-death-toll-state-state
05/22/2007

Rank		State	Number of Deaths	Death Rate
						per million population 18-54
51		Vermont		19		58.1
50		North Dakota	17		51
49		South Dakota	18		47.2
48		Montana		20		42.9
47		Nebraska	38		42.8
46		Wyoming		11		41.9
45		Maine		26		39
44		Alaska		15		38.4
43		Delaware	15		36.1
42		Idaho		24		35.7
41		Oregon		65		35.5
40		New Hampshire	23		34.4
39		Louisiana	79		33.6
38		Arizona		89		33.5
37		Arkansas	45		33
35		Oklahoma	58		32.5
36		Nevada		35		32.5
34		Mississippi	48		32.4
33		New Mexico	29		30.9
32		Iowa		43		28.7
31		West Virginia	27		28.6
30		Texas		320		28.3
27		Wisconsin	79		27.9
28		Kansas		39		27.9
29		Pennsylvania    176		27.9
26		Kentucky	59		27.2
24		Indiana		85		26.4
25		Ohio		157		26.4
23		Virginia	103		26.3
22		Tennessee	79		25.9
21		Alabama		59		25.3
20		South Carolina	54		25.2
19		Michigan	132		25.1
18		Hawaii		16		24.7
17		Missouri	71		24.4
16		Maryland	68		23.7
15		Georgia		104		22.8
14		Washington	73		22.7
13		Colorado	55		22.5
12		California	384		20.9
10		Florida		163		20.5
11		North Carolina	90		20.5
9		Illinois	134		20.2
8		Minnesota	52		19.7
7		Massachusetts	66		19.2
6		Rhode Island	10		17.9
5		Utah		21	        17.8
4		New York	169		16.7
3		Connecticut	28		15.7
2		New Jersey	61		13.7
1		Washington, DC	4		11.9
===========================================================

		Total	3,655	24

[MADem]

38. Point, and laugh....! They're going nowhere.

An exercise in flakiness, attended by flakes.

[NavyDavy]

39. I think the FBI should go in and arrest all their traitor asses, after

all we are at war.....then summarily executed!! }( IMHO anyway

[chollybocker]

45. Yeh! The citizens of Vermont are out of control.

The Union is in peril!

[Snarkoleptic]

47. Exactly where will Dumbfuckistan be located?

I mean, I'd like to add the coordinates to my GPS to ensure I don't have any encounters with these nimrods.

[dgibby]

60. I'm thinking Gitmo. Nice warm and sunny location.

[NeedleCast]

50. They're welcome to go

but we're keeping the land...

[No.23]

57. Absolutely. The USA is too big and bloated. It needs a size reduction.

'Nuff said.

[Snarkoleptic]

65. Please expand on your indefensible position or add the sarcasm thingie.

[No.23]

72. If you believe that my position is indefensible, than why...

should I waste your time to defend it?

For entertainment purposes?

I'm not entertained by the exercise of defending positions to someone who has already concluded them to be indefensible.

I will say this, however.

700,000 Americans died during the Civil War. Was that a worthwhile price to stop some states from seceding?

I don't think so.

As a wise man (Albert Einstein) once said:

"Nationalism is an infantile disease"

[originalpckelly]

76. The reason they were succeeding was not just.

You cannot claim to be succeeding for just reasons if you are slave holders. States rights was a cover for slavery, because no one wanted to address a certain old southern institution.

[No.23]

78. That depends on which version(s) of the history of that time...

you believe in.

If you want to start another thread to discuss this, I'll be game.

It can be a meaty discourse.

And the irony of it all is, Obama may indeed have a chance to be the second Lincoln in the next couple of years.

So it (the various versions of the history of the Civil War, that is) may be a very pertinent discussion.

[originalpckelly]

79. While others have cited the other issues of states rights...

which were more legitimate in their concerns, the south eventually succeeded because of slavery. We should never forget that the confederate states of America had the same constitution, save for a line item veto. Were states rights the real issue, one would expect a long discourse on a newer/better constitution to have produced a document significantly different from the US Constitution.

[No.23]

81. Here's what I told...

my daughter when she attended elementary school.

"When you study history in school, try to remember that it's only one version or interpretation of what happened.

There are always more than one. For every historical incident. For every record of time.

Don't be too quick to assign authority to one version of history. Particularly if it's the version that they want you to have in school.

What actually happened can be pieced together, only after you've exposed yourself to several versions of a historical event."

Her history teachers didn't all appreciate her questioning spirit. But I certainly did.

[originalpckelly]

86. So what's your version?

Did slavery play any part in it? I'm curious.

I agree with the history thing, but what's the other side, in your opinion?

[No.23]

89. Of course it did.

It certainly was a significant factor. And the flag that the proponents of a strong, centralized government flew the highest to justify 700,000 dead Americans to maintain its geographical configuration.

But if slavery was the real reason that the Federal Government went to war, my friend, why did it, shortly thereafter, convene a campaign of death and destruction against the indigenous American Indians?

I watch what a person does to assess their true motives, not their words.

If we truly went to war for principally humanitarian reasons, then we wouldn't have inhumanely treated the indigenous American the way that we have.

And continue to.

[No.23]

90. P.S.

When my daughter's class discussed Abraham Lincoln, this is one article that I read and discussed with her:

http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist?page=0,0

Just goes to show, it helps to read and learn about diverse perspectives.

[tnlefty]

87. Then dammit, not than...

and keep trying to defend this. I'll try to remember to read it tomorrow, just to be entertained and all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Ah anther fan of the 10th Amendment movement

I luv to call them out

[No.23]

75. If the issue was placed for public referendum, of course I'd...

vote to let any state leave the union who wants to.

Coercive authoritarianism has the foulest taste in my mouth.

In whatever form it comes in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Did you miss the civil war?

I mean the 1871 USSC decision is far less known... but you missed the civil war?

Damn people need to learn some history

Oh never mind, what am I talking about? History is like oil and water for most people

By the way in spirit I may agree with the idea, but given the legal precedents already established that is simply not Constitutional, so SHORT of a convention to rewrite the constitution no go... then there is the consequences of doing that.

[No.23]

97. Are you working with...

the impression that there is only one version of history?

You'd do well working in the Department of Education.

They're proponents and practitioners of official versions of history as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Actually I am a historian by training

I take it you are a fan of the war between the states and how Lincoln was a racist (which he was, see Liberia, and context works too... wait here I go again with concepts that any working historian would be familiar with)

By the way, there is one version of events, and MANY Interpretations and layers of interpretations...

SOme of them are just plain wrong also... for an extreme example see holocaust denial.

As in fantasy wrong

Did the North commit atrocities during the civil war, you betcha, did the South commit atrocities you betcha

Is the civil war about slavery, not really...

Was it about economics, you betcha

Was the emancipation declaration an economic warfare decision?

You betcha

Was the States Rights Arguments about that particular institution, you betcha.

See there are many nuances that grammar and high school history classes don't go into

But they do go into this one, the south lost the war between the states, time to get over it. Oh and the tenth amendment institute is our modern day version of ahem those state rights and keeping the South clear from Unions and all those other horrible things that the New Deal brought, what do you think Taft Hatley was all about? These fine folks (use these words with a pinch of sarcasm) want to go back to a time when plantations were around, (in the modern sense of course), and those people Mostly working poor, know their damn place... They also want a nation that is guided by godly principles, read theocracy... the American Taliban... as it were

[tnlefty]

58. No. This group plays footsie with The Southern League and the

Alaska Independence Party and as far as I'm concerned I wish their membership would just drop dead. Google them all, then go to the Southern Poverty Law Center website to get the down and dirty on The Southern League.

Why would a group from VT be playing footsie with a group as nasty in their endgame goals as The Southern League?

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[Politicalboi]

62. Didn't VT have a petition

To Impeach Bush/Cheney if they stepped foot in it?

[No.23]

85. Yep.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2045661020070420

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/66746

http://newsbusters.org/node/11266

[Jamastiene]

74. E pluribus unum

That's not such a good idea. Don't leave me stuck with all these stupid assholes I am surrounded by just because of where I live geographically. Dammit, I cannot afford to move. x(

[Posteritatis]

83. Article is several years old (nt)

[WCGreen]

88. You know I haven't read all the responses...

But what kind of whimpy ass successionist movement would start out with a "Think Tank: studying the situation...

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. The same that used the pages of papers, both north and south back in the day

this is how you start one...

:-)

And this is just the latest tech and all that to do what was done between 1820 and 1860

These guys have been at this in one form or another for over twenty years

And now they have a (insert racial slur here) in charge and that scares the living daylights out of them

Yep, some of these guys use the cover of the tenth amendment to justify ... ready for this? States Rights?

Sounds familiar?

Read about those papers back in the day

[McCamy Taylor]

93. Good riddance. They use up all our tax dollars and do not contribute.

I will just move to a blue state and we will be rich, and the red states can start supporting themselves! Recession over---for us.

:dem:

[LiberalPersona]

104. So where will that leave those of us

who can't afford to move?
We get to have our lives devastated?

[backscatter712]

96. Let the Freeptards have the deep South.

Then build a wall around them to keep the stupid in.

[NoPasaran]

100. The linked article is dated September 27, 2006

Number of states holding steady at fifty by my count.

[ThomWV]

101. If they talk about a forceful exit they should be charged with treason

This is serious. Many of these idiots speak of leaving forcefully - fighting their way in a new (and immaginary) civil war. This is nothing if it is not treason. They are plotting war against their country from the inside.

[ThomWV]

103. And by the way - wouldn't that conference call constitute a conspiracy?

[LanternWaste]

102. Fringe movements will receive...

Fringe movements will receive all the consideration they are due.

Much as the Reqonquista movement, the Texas Secession movement, the Make America One Giant Renaissance Faire movement, and the Replace Penicillin with Root Beer movement, I'm sure this particular movement will reach unknown heights of both a Beatles-like success and a worldwide Churchillian respect.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Laelth]

105. This thread is nauseating. Read at your own peril. n/t

-Laelth

[Lucian]

106. The article was written in 2006.

I think it's a little outdated.