Page 1 of 2
Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (20:19)
by jinxed_07
In one of my classes, were currently talking about the civil war,and of one the problem I have with it is that,even though I do not support slavery,the states were not 'allowed' to sucede,much like the 13 colonies weren't 'allowed' to declare indepence from britian(without a fight). The US government(which would of been congress and President Lincon at the time) was VERY hypocritical,and should not of started a war over states leaving because they were "bugged" by the union....
So you rant or debate about the civil war and/or state sucession here...
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (20:46)
by Tanner
I don't think anything or anyone should suicide, but that, ultimately, it's their choice and we should respect that.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:14)
by otters~1
rennaT wrote:I don't think anything or anyone should suicide, but that, ultimately, it's their choice and we should respect that.
Idiot. Sucede's a Pokemon; they can only faint. You missed his point completely.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:22)
by jinxed_07
I have the EXACT same opinion as rennaT
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:23)
by otters~1
jinxed_07 wrote:I have the EXACT same opinion as rennaT
That was either one of the most amusing things I have ever read, or a feeble joke.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:27)
by t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư
I don't see why not, provided the overwhelming majority wants to.
That said, those people in the South who proudly wave Confederate flags are morons.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:33)
by T3chno
flagmyidol wrote:Sucede's a Pokemon
It's Suicine you noob.
Plus, seceding is stupid. It's like committing suicide as a state.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:34)
by otters~1
Flight wrote:flagmyidol wrote:Sucede's a Pokemon
It's Suicine you noob.
Plus, seceding is stupid. It's like committing suicide as a state.
I'm the only one who has to spell perfectly around here?
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:35)
by T3chno
flagmyidol wrote:Flight wrote:flagmyidol wrote:Sucede's a Pokemon
It's Suicine you noob.
Plus, seceding is stupid. It's like committing suicide as a state.
I'm the only one who has to spell perfectly around here?
You are not Tunco nor sawyerscott. So yes, you must.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:37)
by jinxed_07
Ahem,your beginning to "derail"...
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (21:57)
by SlappyMcGee
I don't think any state should be allowed to Hudsucker Proxy. I don't even know what that means:
Edit:

Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (22:58)
by T3chno
jinxed_07 wrote:Ahem,your beginning to "derail"...
Had to be done.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (23:00)
by jinxed_07
Sigh,I'm just sad that i couldn't do it myself.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (23:20)
by jinxed_07
Ok,but please get everyone to stop,no fair to make personal targets,
yes i know your not doing it because it is personal,but in all fairness,you should just tell them to stop also,or close this topic,we don't need any more "God is evil's"
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.11 (23:30)
by otters
jinxed_07 wrote:Ok,but please get everyone to stop,no fair to make personal targets,
yes i know your not doing it because it is personal,but in all fairness,you should just tell them to stop also,or close this topic,we don't need any more "God is evil's"
Why do you not put spaces after your punctuation?Are you descended from Tunco,or...somebody??
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.12 (07:08)
by Tunco
Wight wrote:jinxed_07 wrote:Ok,but please get everyone to stop,no fair to make personal targets,
yes i know your not doing it because it is personal,but in all fairness,you should just tell them to stop also,or close this topic,we don't need any more "God is evil's"
Why do you not put spaces after your punctuation?Are you descended from Tunco,or...somebody??
I guess techno hates me. Anyway, funny that you discuss this in this thread. Go and makea thread about me incluye and techno, if you want to discuss about me so much. Also don't disturb the topic.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.12 (07:46)
by scythe
Tsukatu wrote:I don't see why not, provided the overwhelming majority wants to.
That said, those people in the South who proudly wave Confederate flags are morons.
I'm with Suki here. Ideally, though, the system would be set up in such a way that nobody really wants to secede, because being part of the United States is an overall positive.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.12 (22:51)
by t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư
jinxed_07 wrote:Ok,but please get everyone to stop,no fair to make personal targets,
yes i know your not doing it because it is personal,but in all fairness,you should just tell them to stop also,or close this topic,we don't need any more "God is evil's"
No, no, the point wasn't, "everyone stop talking about this subject," but instead, "jinxed, you are making meaningless posts rapid-fire. Knock it off." It
is personal, because you are the single individual, because of things you are doing, who is being asked to shut the hell up.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.16 (08:21)
by McP
good thread would read again
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.16 (09:03)
by blue_tetris
When do we re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-ban McP? Give the word.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.16 (19:08)
by origami_alligator
I think the want to secede should be an option, but most states don't have an economy large enough to support itself were one to secede from the Union. Not to mention that many people would probably see seceding as "anti-Patriotic," "socialist," or any other number of key words that would upset the public.
There are two separate groups in Oregon who wish to secede from the Union. I don't know much about them, but I know they exist. The biggest issue that any State would face if they were seceding from the Union is dispelling the standing army within their borders. Because the military is a part of the United States government, removing and/or attacking them would be considered a threat to the United States. Enter tanks, stage left. Air Force jets circle overhead. Order is restored. Exit, stage right.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.16 (21:13)
by t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư
Manus Australis wrote:There are two separate groups in Oregon who wish to secede from the Union. I don't know much about them, but I know they exist. The biggest issue that any State would face if they were seceding from the Union is dispelling the standing army within their borders. Because the military is a part of the United States government, removing and/or attacking them would be considered a threat to the United States. Enter tanks, stage left. Air Force jets circle overhead. Order is restored. Exit, stage right.
Seriously, I don't understand why the US can't shrug and say "okay," and then immediately re-conquer the land by sending in a nearby detachment of the National Guard. I really doubt that anyone would care. It's not like the UN is going to drop armies of peacekeeping forces to protect the sovereignty of Bumfuck, Oregon. No, they're just going to shake their heads, call the US crazy, and turn their attention back to things that anyone would care about.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.21 (03:57)
by jean-luc
Tsukatu wrote:Manus Australis wrote:There are two separate groups in Oregon who wish to secede from the Union. I don't know much about them, but I know they exist. The biggest issue that any State would face if they were seceding from the Union is dispelling the standing army within their borders. Because the military is a part of the United States government, removing and/or attacking them would be considered a threat to the United States. Enter tanks, stage left. Air Force jets circle overhead. Order is restored. Exit, stage right.
Seriously, I don't understand why the US can't shrug and say "okay," and then immediately re-conquer the land by sending in a nearby detachment of the National Guard. I really doubt that anyone would care. It's not like the UN is going to drop armies of peacekeeping forces to protect the sovereignty of Bumfuck, Oregon. No, they're just going to shake their heads, call the US crazy, and turn their attention back to things that anyone would care about.
A note - the biggest secession movement is not bumfuck, oregon. It would be the country of Cascadia, incorporating roughly everything west of the Cascades from a bit south of San Francisco, CA, USA up to Vancouver, BC, CA (led by Portland, OR, US). The proposed area incorporates an economy larger than several successful European countries, and nontrivial potential in 'conventional' resources (and it should be noted that in the modern world conventional resources are becoming less and less determinant in the success of a country). If you're ever in Portland you'll see people with rectangular white bumper stickers with the silhouette of a tree in green. That's the Cascadian flag.
And it's not necessarily as simple as recapturing. Any move against a part of the US, even a
former part of the US, would be very unpopular due to the loss of life that would likely be widely considered American. There are certainly people that would be all for a military campaign, but an attack on former US citizens who have peacefully seceded would have very significant repercussions that could easily attract attention from other countries. Even a nonviolent move like the imposition of sanctions would be interpreted badly by many. I don't know what would happen, but I'm quite certain there would be no simple recapture.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.21 (05:39)
by t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư
jean-luc wrote:A note - the biggest secession movement is not bumfuck, oregon. It would be the country of Cascadia, incorporating roughly everything west of the Cascades from a bit south of San Francisco, CA, USA up to Vancouver, BC, CA (led by Portland, OR, US). The proposed area incorporates an economy larger than several successful European countries, and nontrivial potential in 'conventional' resources (and it should be noted that in the modern world conventional resources are becoming less and less determinant in the success of a country). If you're ever in Portland you'll see people with rectangular white bumper stickers with the silhouette of a tree in green. That's the Cascadian flag.
And it's not necessarily as simple as recapturing. Any move against a part of the US, even a former part of the US, would be very unpopular due to the loss of life that would likely be widely considered American. There are certainly people that would be all for a military campaign, but an attack on former US citizens who have peacefully seceded would have very significant repercussions that could easily attract attention from other countries. Even a nonviolent move like the imposition of sanctions would be interpreted badly by many. I don't know what would happen, but I'm quite certain there would be no simple recapture.
Wow, I was completely unaware that there were larger-scale secession movements. Just about all I've heard of were on the scale of a single town or city, if not 6 rednecks declaring the sovereignty of their trailer.
Re: Should states be allowed to 'sucede'
Posted: 2009.09.21 (06:10)
by Ampersand
blue_tetris wrote:When do we re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-ban McP? Give the word.
Already been done again. SOMEONE REVERSED IT, JUST LIKE ALL MY BANS.