If the south wanted to secede now would the rest of america have any objections. (middle east, racism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a northern aka a Yankee and spend the winter months with my southern friends in FL. The majority of them are quite angry with all the BS about the confederate flag being a symbol of racism and think the ignorant few who are making an issue should stop causing problems. As others have stated it makes no sense financially or economically to split the nation.
a) Not everyone in the South is bereft at the direction the US is going. Many down there are making appreciable progress. For instance, when the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was ruled, a couple of my Southern born-and-bred friends from NC called me to tell me how happy they were about it.
b) The modern South is populated in earnest by Yankees, Hispanics, and of course many native and Northern blacks. Let's be real here - who really has a serious secessionist attitude down there? I'm going to say it's predominantly older Southern whites, especially men. I doubt those types make up a strong numerical majority in the South anymore and besides, the clock is ticking.
c) Unfortunately, I don't think that many people really care this much. Americans of all regional backgrounds seem too busy with their vapid entertainment culture and daily annoyances to be bothered with momentous political obstacles such as preserving the very delicate Union.
You're undermining your own argument when you point out that MS will get her independence and the rest of the states will no longer bear the burden of supporting MS. It's a win-win for everybody!
I'm not sure what argument you think I'm undermining. What argument do you think I'm making?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Without the boot-heels of the Supreme Court and the Dept. of Education / No Child Left Behind on their throats, they just might be able to improve themselves well beyond their current states.
Of course, I'm sure that you wouldn't make a comment like that unless all the Northern, Midwestern, Southwestern, PNW, and DC schools were in tip-top shape.
Again, I'm not entirely sure what argument you think I'm making here. I'm not exactly enamored of the United States education system in general. In fact, I believe it pretty much sucks, no matter what state you're living in. I further believe that some states suck far worse than others.
What exactly do you think we're disagreeing on here, because the only sense I get from your posts is that you don't like what I'm saying, but aren't offering much of a counterargument. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. As for the bolded portion, I would be particularly and sincerely interested in hearing what your own view is.
We Californian's only want the Baja California part of Mexico !
Why didn't the US ever attempt to buy that from Mexico? I wonder why it wasn't included in the Gadsen Purchase? In the 1800's there was hardly a soul living there in Baja, and it was considered useless land.
I'm not sure what argument you think I'm undermining. What argument do you think I'm making?
In post #127, you seemed to be arguing that Mississippi would be shooting itself in the foot by seceding. That notion is what I contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
Again, I'm not entirely sure what argument you think I'm making here. I'm not exactly enamored of the United States education system in general. In fact, I believe it pretty much sucks, no matter what state you're living in. I further believe that some states suck far worse than others.
What exactly do you think we're disagreeing on here, because the only sense I get from your posts is that you don't like what I'm saying, but aren't offering much of a counterargument. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. As for the bolded portion, I would be particularly and sincerely interested in hearing what your own view is.
My view is that the education system in the USA sucks because of decades of meddling by politicians (particularly at the federal level), and a lack of accountability resulting from teachers' unions and the system of tenure. The further you get from a school, the less in-tune you can be as to the needs of the children in that particular school.
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-06-2015 at 11:07 AM..
Reason: Fixed Tag
I'm not sure what argument you think I'm undermining. What argument do you think I'm making?
In post #127, you seemed to be arguing that Mississippi would be shooting itself in the foot by seceding. That notion is what I contest.
Well, from a purely economic perspective, they wouldn't exactly be doing themselves any huge favors. Like I said, where are they going to get their welfare from if they're not getting it from the blue states?
Obviously, when a state is contemplating taking the huge step of seceding from the union, there are many more factors than that to consider, and it's quite possible that those other considerations are sufficiently important to the citizens of Mississippi that they would consider it worth the financial blow. And we could probably debate all night about all the different reasons, and whether or not secession would be a net gain for them or a step backward, but considering how badly off that state is economically, giving up the tax dollars they receive from wealthier states is not something they're in a position to take lightly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
My view is that the education system in the USA sucks because of decades of meddling by politicians (particularly at the federal level), and a lack of accountability resulting from teachers' unions and the system of tenure. The further you get from a school, the less in-tune you can be as to the needs of the children in that particular school.
I agree to an extent with everything you say here (or perhaps it would be better to say, I don't really disagree), but I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I think we have a lot of things wrong with the American education system, and what you're identifying only scratches the surface. "No Child Left Behind" is a classic example of what you're talking about, and is an abysmal failure. But I think the incompetent meddling by incompetent politicians extends far beyond the federal level, and may be worse at local and state levels than the federal level.
I think there's a lot of blame to go around at every level of government, but when I look at the American educational system, I see a completely dysfunctional.... mmm.... not sure what word I can use that won't get me banned for life, the only one that comes to mind as a completely appropriate term is a military term with the initials "cf" and starts with the word "cluster." An educational system that seems to have been designed by people who have absolutely no idea how to educate children, the primary goal of which is to meet standards, the success or failure of which is determined only by whether it hits certain easily measured numbers, not whether it actually teaches children skills and abilities that will be genuinely useful in their lives - especially as compared to what is being taught to and learned by children from other developed countries. The children against which our children will be competing for jobs as they grow into adulthood.
I don't think it's so much a matter of whether the people who are in charge of designing our educational system are too far removed from the children and their schools; I think the problem is that they're not primarily educators - they're primarily bureaucrats who happened to choose a career in education. I don't think it would make a dime's worth of difference if they set up their offices right in the back row of a classroom; they would have (at best) a very limited understanding of what was happening in that classroom, because they just don't think in terms of how children need to have information presented to them in order to learn it. That's not how their minds work. They think in terms of meeting goals, hitting targets, making their numbers.
I could go on about this for pages, but I'm already wandering way too far off topic for the thread, and I don't like doing that in this forum. That's not the way they like threads to evolve here, and I want to be respectful of that. Let's just say that when the subject turns to education, I don't think we're very much in disagreement. I have a very dim view of the American education system, and very little optimism that it will appreciably improve in the foreseeable future.
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-06-2015 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: Fixed Tag
Well, from a purely economic perspective, they wouldn't exactly be doing themselves any huge favors. Like I said, where are they going to get their welfare from if they're not getting it from the blue states?
Obviously, when a state is contemplating taking the huge step of seceding from the union, there are many more factors than that to consider, and it's quite possible that those other considerations are sufficiently important to the citizens of Mississippi that they would consider it worth the financial blow. And we could probably debate all night about all the different reasons, and whether or not secession would be a net gain for them or a step backward, but considering how badly off that state is economically, giving up the tax dollars they receive from wealthier states is not something they're in a position to take lightly.
I agree to an extent with everything you say here (or perhaps it would be better to say, I don't really disagree), but I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I think we have a lot of things wrong with the American education system, and what you're identifying only scratches the surface. "No Child Left Behind" is a classic example of what you're talking about, and is an abysmal failure. But I think the incompetent meddling by incompetent politicians extends far beyond the federal level, and may be worse at local and state levels than the federal level.
I think there's a lot of blame to go around at every level of government, but when I look at the American educational system, I see a completely dysfunctional.... mmm.... not sure what word I can use that won't get me banned for life, the only one that comes to mind as a completely appropriate term is a military term with the initials "cf" and starts with the word "cluster." An educational system that seems to have been designed by people who have absolutely no idea how to educate children, the primary goal of which is to meet standards, the success or failure of which is determined only by whether it hits certain easily measured numbers, not whether it actually teaches children skills and abilities that will be genuinely useful in their lives - especially as compared to what is being taught to and learned by children from other developed countries. The children against which our children will be competing for jobs as they grow into adulthood.
I don't think it's so much a matter of whether the people who are in charge of designing our educational system are too far removed from the children and their schools; I think the problem is that they're not primarily educators - they're primarily bureaucrats who happened to choose a career in education. I don't think it would make a dime's worth of difference if they set up their offices right in the back row of a classroom; they would have (at best) a very limited understanding of what was happening in that classroom, because they just don't think in terms of how children need to have information presented to them in order to learn it. That's not how their minds work. They think in terms of meeting goals, hitting targets, making their numbers.
I could go on about this for pages, but I'm already wandering way too far off topic for the thread, and I don't like doing that in this forum. That's not the way they like threads to evolve here, and I want to be respectful of that. Let's just say that when the subject turns to education, I don't think we're very much in disagreement. I have a very dim view of the American education system, and very little optimism that it will appreciably improve in the foreseeable future.[/quote]
You mention children from other developed nations competing with American children in the future. That is true. What freaks people out in this country is the dreaded notion of actual US wide (here comes the hated Fed Govt) standards that every child has to meet. Germany, UK, France all have nationwide curriculum that has to be taught everywhere in the country. And also exams everyone must pass. Americans freak out about any national curriculum. Instead, on this very forum you have so many Americans with completely different views of what caused the Civil War or whether secession was legal blah blah. We will never match other developed countries until we get uneducated locals out of the business of picking curriculum standards. You think they teach creationism in any country in Western Europe? Hell no. Why do we do that here?
And as far as legality of secession, this is one of the most articulate and well thought out articles I have ever read about secession and the Civil War. This article is written by a Libertarian at the well known Pacific Legal Foundation. Article is titled "How Libertarians Ought to Think about the US Civil War".
The author lays out the very well documented historical fact that the Founding Fathers did not want the Constitution to be ratified by state legislatures. They wanted it ratified by "We The People" of the several states. They wanted divided sovereignty between the state govt and the Fed Govt. This is just a blurb bit sums a key point:
"Under either the weak-union view or the strong-union view, states have no unilateral power to secede. Thus, in addressing whether the Confederacy had the constitutional authority to secede, it is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether the union was created by the Declaration of Independence or not, because ratification resolved the fundamental point: The federal union was an agreement between the people, not the states. The Constitutions fundamental premise of divided sovereignty- respected by both the weak-union and strong-union views-- means that the people of America are bound together as one people for certain purposes, and therefore a state many not unilaterally secede.
Because the sovereignty of a state is distinct from that of the union, a state can no more absolve its people of their allegiance to the federal government than the gas company can absolve a customer from paying her electric bill. The people, who adopted the Constitution, may decide to allow the people of a state to leave the union--through congressional action (according to the weak-union view) or by adopting a constitutional amendment(according to the strong-union view). But unilateral secession is constitutional.
"in the compound republic of America" said Madison, " the power surrendered by the peopole is first divided between two distinct governments..." But "the main fallacy of nullification" he later explained, is the assumption that sovereignty is a unit, at once indivisible and unalienable; that the states therefore individually retain it entire as they originally held it, and consequently, that no portion of it can belong to the US....Where does the sovereignty which makes such a Constitution reside? It resides not in a single state but in the people of each of the several states, uniting with those of the others in the express and solemn compact which forms the Constitution. To the extent of that compact or Constitution, therefore, the people of the several States must be a sovereign as they are a united people..
That a sovereignty should have ever been denied to the States in their united character, may well excite wonder, when it is recollected that the Constitution which now unites them, was announced by the convention which formed it, as dividing sovereignty between the Union and the States; that it was presented under that view, by contemporary expositions recommending it to the ratifying authorities; that it has proved to have been so understood by the language which has been applied to it constantly..."
Divided sovereignty (also called dual sovereignty) was the principal innovation of the Constitution. While the strong-union view saw ratification as simply an overhauling of the union, to the weak-union view ratification reformed the sovereignty of the states as well as of the federal government. But according to both views, federal sovereignty is independent of the sovereignty of the states.
Even Anti-Federalists acknowledged that ratifying the Constitution meant redefining American sovereignty."
Another great article by a Libertarian sums up why he despises the Confederacy.
"Jason Kuznicki argues that “anyone who cares about human liberty—to whatever degree—ought to despise the Confederacy.”
Revelations about the pro-Confederacy views of one of Rand Paul’s inner circle have libertarians once again discussing what exactly we should think about the Confederacy, the Civil War, and its place in American political life today.
Whatever others may say on the subject, I can’t understand how anyone might admire the Confederacy and also call themselves a libertarian. Any affinity for the Confederacy marks one very clearly as an enemy of liberty."
Bottom line is that the children of the US should be taught just how despicable a regime the Confederacy was, as opposed to some school districts teaching children the Confederacy was the truest form of the American Republic. Southerners need to ditch any and all attachment to that time. And those monuments which glorify the Confederacy as some do, those should be torn down at once.
Another blurb from the second article which basically explains why it such bs to claim the people of the South ever had any intention of giving up slavery over time. They had no such intention. It would have lasted well into the 20th century, and American abolitionists of that era knew that well.
"But the Confederate Constitution was vastly worse. What it lacked in schizophrenia, it more than made up for in pure, unadulterated, wholly consistent evil. Consider the following passages:
No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due. The Confederate States may acquire new territory… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-06-2015 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: Fixed Tag
What if we acknowledged that this is the 21st Century, and that the South as a "block" doesn't exist?
The motivations for secession are still the same: Economics and Enfranchisement.
For example, the $249+ Billion that Texans fork over to the former federal government to be wasted now stays in Texas.
That makes Texans $249 Billion richer.
GDP
Canada: $1,821,445,000
Australia: $1,564,419,000
State of Texas: $1,458,300,000
Without interference from the former federal government, Texas would easily surpass Canada and Australia in GDP and Standard of Living.
Realistically...
Mircea
No they wouldn't. Texas has the worst "populist" type economy. Only the wealthy would have a great standard of living, the lower middle working class and those living in poverty would still be poorly schooled, and have horrible heAlth, and won't be able to vote. That's the real texas
Like I said, where are they going to get their welfare from if they're not getting it from the blue states?
That's for them to figure out - if they decide to keep welfare spending at its present level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
I don't think it's so much a matter of whether the people who are in charge of designing our educational system are too far removed from the children and their schools; I think the problem is that they're not primarily educators - they're primarily bureaucrats who happened to choose a career in education. I don't think it would make a dime's worth of difference if they set up their offices right in the back row of a classroom; they would have (at best) a very limited understanding of what was happening in that classroom, because they just don't think in terms of how children need to have information presented to them in order to learn it. That's not how their minds work. They think in terms of meeting goals, hitting targets, making their numbers.
I submit to you that the cause of what you are describing is the need to meet the standards, set by bureaucrats, that impact funding.
No they wouldn't. Texas has the worst "populist" type economy. Only the wealthy would have a great standard of living, the lower middle working class and those living in poverty would still be poorly schooled, and have horrible heAlth, and won't be able to vote. That's the real texas
I'm a working-class Texan, in good health, have never had trouble voting, and graduated from a high school that had a "Recognized" ranking by the Texas Education Agency.
What part of Texas have you lived in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
