Grumblings Grow Louder

A place to talk about anything. Stocks, politics, or your neighbors who won't turn down that music.
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
User avatar
WoVeU
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
Contact:

Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby WoVeU » Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:48 pm

I have to say I am pleasantly surprised to be hearing very liberal individuals and passive (some very passive) mostly conservative types all voicing much rougher and louder grumblings on a revolution of some sort being in order. In Texas, this usually takes the form of Texas invoking their rights to return to an independent Republic. I'd like to see it...hopefully others would follow. We could separate along 3 to 5 lines of common thought. And I don't think you have to be physically annexed to be under one flag! You could have Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, etc. under 1 flag...with Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, etc...under another.

I'd love to see it to set back and watch the Uber-Liberal America go down the tubes in 3 years and the Labor-Conservative Americas grow 2 to 3 fold in that Economy in the same period! It would be great...all the bums and criminals could (and would) flock to New Estrogen America. And all of those old thinking, dumb, boring conservatives and people of Judeo-Christian values would flock the other way. The Middle would do OK, but the Labor-Conservatives would easily out pace the growth of China!
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
R. Reagan

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby billybud » Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:17 pm

LOL....Dream on.

We tried that. We had a disagreement among the states about policy...about 150 years ago. There will be no more secessions. Just blow hards like Limbaugh talking about it.
Last edited by billybud on Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Spence » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:53 pm

billybud wrote:LOL....Dream on.

We tried that. We had a disagreement among the states about policy...about 150 years ago. There will be no more successions. Just blow hards like Limbaugh talking about it.


We don't need successions, just a move away from federal control and a move back to the states - as it was meant to be by the founders. I agree Limbaugh is just blowing smoke if that is what he is saying.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
WoVeU
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
Contact:

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby WoVeU » Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:34 pm

Secession wouldn't be my goal, but I'd like to see the talk grow! So maybe it would get us back to State's rights. But we live in a world of put up or shut up, if folks couldn't get serious about seceding...there will be no return to form!

I know, one thing, if I can't leave the country to get away from the Big Scrape (can't take my ball and go home)...then I'm taking my ball down to the park and signing up for the same game the filthy rich and the not-so-poor are playing and getting my money out of the taxable category. (Borrowing some schemes from each side.)
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
R. Reagan

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Derek » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:32 pm

billybud wrote:LOL....Dream on.

We tried that. We had a disagreement among the states about policy...about 150 years ago. There will be no more successions. Just blow hards like Limbaugh talking about it.


blowhards don't stay on the air for 20+ years and have as much success as he does.

That being said......I don't believe succession will happen. I do like the talk of it, and the fact that people are ticked at what's going on.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Eric » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:37 am

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


Such blowhard radicals :D

Actually, if Texas did happen to secede, I would certainly wish them well. Heck, I may even move down there :lol: . I am afraid though that it would turn into some quasi-theocracy, so I'm not quite cool with that.

Image


"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that -- however bloody -- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave." - Lysander Spooner


So yeah, screw the guv'mint :wink:
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Eric » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:40 am

billybud wrote:LOL....Dream on.

We tried that. We had a disagreement among the states about policy...about 150 years ago. There will be no more successions. Just blow hards like Limbaugh talking about it.


So basically what you are saying in this scenario is that "might makes right." Regardless of the slavery issue, the South saw it fit that they "dissolve the political bands" that tied them down.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby billybud » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:52 pm

Nope Eric..I am not saying that. At all. I think that you are attempting to put words in my mouth.

What I am saying is that the might of the USA, right or wrong, weighed in on secession, and would do so again. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 settled early on that the federal government would decide where state's rights ended. Local citizens rebelled re excise taxes, had shootouts with excise collectors, and old GW sent in the troops to quell the rebellion. The early Fries rebellion over taxes in Pennsylvania was also put down by federal marshalls.

Our country has a history of citizen rebellions, usually settled by force. Not only the Civil War. National prohibition brought the hated federal "revenuers" to states where it was a tradition to make liquor and a national income tax brought us the IRS.

The national interest trumps state interest and national might enforces that national interest.

Who was it that charged down to Alabama to escort black kids to the University of Alabama past the token stance of George Wallace blocking the door? The 101st Airborne was called out by Eisenhowewr to enforce integrated schools in Arkansas (after the Governor called out the National Guard to block it).

A federal expeditionary force marched on the miners of Mingo County, West Virginia to put down a worker rebellion. Ten thousand armed miners had to back down from the mighty federal force that included a squadron of bombers.

What I am saying is that it has been established over and over again that the might of the federal government will weigh in. The definition of states' rights may sway back and forth some over time with the leanings of the Supreme Court, but basically the union of the states is established and the authority of a national government over that of local interest.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Eric » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:49 pm

Yes, but is that a proper manner in determining whether or not a state has the ability to secede or not? That is the question. Just saying, "eh, it can't happen anyway" isn't really an answer at all. I know your response's purpose may not have been to answer this question, and if not, what do you think?
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby billybud » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:47 pm

Well...there are arguments for and against the unilateral right for a state to seceed...But I think that this matter has already been settled as both a matter of custom, history, and legal precedent.

When the states joined the Union, they perpetually gave up important attributes of sovereignty in doing so. Among these was--and is--a right of unilateral secession.

Article VII of the constitution sets out the provisions for original ratification, and Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, may indicate that the door to the Union swings in but not out.

But this inference is only an inference, and there was considerable uncertainty about the legality of unilateral secession in the first seven decades following the Constitution's adoption. That uncertainty was put to rest not by the superior strength of the anti-secessionist argument, but by Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

The Supreme Court has spoken. History has spoken. There will not be a unilateral state secession. Furthermore, it would not be practical. If, say, Texas secceeded from the union, the borders could be closed, no travel to or from the state without documents and inconvenience, loss of the income from numerous military bases..it would be ruinous to Texas to become a sovereign entity. It won't happen...JMHO
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby donovan » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:05 pm

Succession is not a possibility in the United States, nor should it be. It is entertainment discussion by talk show hosts and slow times until real issue come to the forefront, i.e. kickoff.

On the local level I am guessing every state has or has recently had counties that wanted to succeed from the state. I know, Washington, Oregon and Idaho have a continual movement for that.

I think Mr. Billybud's assessment of this issue, unlike the homer Weather Channel, is correct.

I am more amazed at the South jumping on history revision regarding slavery. Kind of a holocaust never happened. Well, then again, Southern groups and Northern Idaho flame that stupidity.
Statistics are the Morphine of College Football

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby billybud » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:40 am

Actually Donovan.....we all know that slavery happened. It is the darn yankees who have amnesia about their role.

The slavers who made a fortune running to Africa and kidnapping africans were New England seafarers, whose ships were built on the upper east coast and who were banked by the financial institutions of Boston and New York. Slavery is a direct result of these organized, funded kidnappings that made northeasterners very rich. Slavery in the US and Carribbean was a market invented by the north that enriched the northeast. The yanks had a neat trade going. Steal africans, take them to the Carribean, sell them, buy rum and mollasses in the carribbean, and then sell the rum and mollasses in the east coast markets. Just Yankee Traders.

And, while northeners like to simper about the awfulness of the south and slavery, it was the burgeoning textile manufacturing of the upper east coast that demanded the cotton and used the end product of slavery. Neat huh? Provide the slaves, reap the end product of slavery, yet appear to have kept your hands clean. Nike must have used this model when they had kids in Pakistan slaving to make soccer balls. Those darn Pakistani's and their child abuse!

Now, most southerners did not have slaves. Only larger property owners did. Certainly my ancestors, the poor subsistence farmers of Wilcox County, Alabama did not. But they fought for their country when called upon, these poor boys in butternut. They fought, suffered and died under the stars and bars. Victors have always dictated history, and certainly the union did exactly that. They cast themselves as the righteous, marching forward as christian soldiers to rid the land of a pestilence.

But that history has been skewed, as it always is by the victor, to portray themselves in the best light and may not be as accurate as it might have been.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby Spence » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:42 am

Even more northerners, then southerners did not have anything to do with slavery. Yes, northerners were envolved in slave trade, but not many of them. Most northerners did not have anything at all to do with slavery. Most didn't do anything to stop it either.

The war between the states had very little to do with human rights. It had to do with cutting the south's revenue stream. This country, during that time period at least, was a country that openly practiced racism. Not the north or the south, but the whole country - except maybe the west as they were too busy trying to stay alive to worry about such things.

General Sherman, the civil war hero from my hometown, was not a good guy. He was a very effective general, his scortched earth philosophy probably did more then any other thing to end the war, but he was never in danger being recognized as a humanitarian.

One thing I will say about the differences between the north and south. The north quit fighting the war in the 1860's and some from the south never have to this day. We all live in America. No one is going to succeed. We must all figure the right course together, but separately. That is the answer.

If the liberals want to prove their government healthcare works let them prove it in Massachusetts. If the conservatives want to prove the free market is the answer let them prove it in Texas or where ever they want. Then when we find something that works, long term, we can all follow suit.

For liberals in our government to hold up the Canadian system is less then honest, because the Canadian system does not work without the US being where it it.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
donovan
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby donovan » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:11 am

billybud wrote:Actually Donovan.....we all know that slavery happened. It is the darn yankees who have amnesia about their role.



Yes we all do know slavery happened and I suspect most on this board, unlike today's politicians, understand the complexity of it. But to be clear. The Civil War had more to do with State and Federal rights than human rights. When the Dred Scott decision came down the war was inevitable. I wonder if all the political pundits that want to argue the Federal governments role should be diminished in most every area would like that decision to stand. As you pointed out, Mr.Billybud, when in Arkansas and Alabama integration was an issue, it was the Federal Gov that came to insure the law, the Governors called out the National Guard. That is a close to another civil war I want to get.

The issue of state versus federal rights was always the basis of constitutional discussion. Slavery and other issues were just the examples used.

It was a Southerner, George Mason, that argued most eloquently against slavery at the constitution convention.

"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

On the other hand a Southern delegate John Rutledge of South Carolina, for example, told delegates that "religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions" of whether the Constitution should protect slavery--it was simply a question of property rights.

So as a strong advocate of States Rights, I think states can adopt whatever textbooks they want. Heck, it's there your kids.
Statistics are the Morphine of College Football

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10727
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Grumblings Grow Louder

Postby billybud » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:29 am

Spence...you write from the perspective of an midwesterner, without any feel for the south at all. I have been exposed to both cultures since I am the unnatural prodigy of an Alabama girl and a Wisconsin boy. One GG grandfather rode with the Wisconsin 3rd Cavalry and another GG grandfather with the Johnny Rebs.

The perspective that you are missing is that of a survivor of an occupied country. The north was spared the concept of "total war". A war against civilians that had not been forgotten by my grandparents generation. At a time when a family depended on their crops and farm animals to survive, it was the policy of the union to burn and destroy. War widows and their children were starving because their crops and livestock were destroyed. The invading union armies burned homesteads, cities, pillaged and, yes, raped. That great southern shame is never spoken about by the victors, but the scars were carried by many families. My grandfather heard directly from his elders and I, of course, listened to the stories of my grandfather.

After the war, union armies occupied the south and yankee scalawags and carpetbaggers of every verminous stripe stole what wasn't nailed down and much of what was.

Why should we forget the sacrifices made by our ancestors? The south was decimated. Our men suffered casualty rates that make WWII losses look mild. Thirty percent of all southern males aged 18-40 died. Whole family lines ended. But a southern culture endured. Endured reconstruction, endured poverty. The great fight, over time, became a romanticized, sepia toned memory rather than the ugly gritty experience that it actually was.

In Vicksburg, they went 81 years without celebrating July 4. But, as the generations move on, and as we become more homogenized and regional cultures are bulldozed by the great American strip mall culture, the Civil War and its aftermath are being forgotten or are just not important to my son's generation of southerners.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests