Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:56 AM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
5,342 posts, read 3,823,564 times
Reputation: 7265

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
Many states are divided politically. Urban voters tend to be liberal, and like high taxation, rural and suburban voters tend to be conservative and prefer lower taxation.

In many liberal states, take New York for example, all but 4 counties vote Republican most every election, yet the 4 counties that vote Democrat always take the state as the balance of population between NYC and the state rests in just 4 of NYC's 5 counties.

Same with Maryland, California and many other states.

As a result many conservatives feel unrepresented by their states government and wish to be separate. Generally states in this situation favor policies that harm conservatives to favor liberals as control of the electorate lies with pleasing liberals. Conservatives feel they lack representation and are unfairly burdened.

Congress will not permit any state to bifurcate. It would alter the balance of power in the Senate.

A state with a truce between liberal and conservative seems to be Texas where Austin is accepted as a liberal strange cousin to the other cities. As such there hasn't been much movement for Texas to break up recently.
I'm not sure if this was addressed on pages 3-19 of the comments, but regarding NY, you're overstating your case. Erie, Monroe, Onondoga, Albany, and definitely Tompkins counties are probably voting Democrat in any given presidential election. I'd be curious to review the historical data in this regard (I know it would hold for the most recent elections), but, even without the assistance of Nate Silver, I'll certainly project that it'll be true for the foreseeable future. Those counties are home to the Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and Ithaca metro areas, respectively (Albany's metro is more spread out amongst a few counties, so in that case, city itself and some inner-ring suburbs, I think--this is offhand). That last (Ithaca/Tompkins County, home to Cornell) is probably as blue as any area of the state, albeit just a bit less populated than say Brooklyn or Manhattan, heh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2014, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,628,372 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
I first heard about the famous book very honestly because of an uncle tom joke on a sit com . I read the book to see what all the fuss was about . I have to say I have rarely been more impressed with a character in a story than I was with Tom. He was an absolute saint. I don't understand why blacks make fun of him and how his name started being used as an insult. I think maybe the play of the same name must have given a bad impression of him or something. I don't see how anyone reading the book could have felt that way.
Tom was a great character but he was a pacifist. He wouldn't fight back. That's how the term 'Uncle Tom' is used today. To describe someone who will not fight back, who just sits and takes it... Someone who does NOT rock the boat..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:40 AM
 
Location: London
4,717 posts, read 5,023,177 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The south had more problems than that. They had few factories to produce all sorts of goods(like steal for rails, cloth for uniforms, ect.),
Exports of cotton and tobacco would pay for all they needed from Europe, but the ports were blockaded.

The UK decided tuned to Egypt for cotton. It took a time and left Lancashire at starvation levels. The north compensated them for a while.

Texas could clearly go it alone as could California and probably NY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Cumberland County, NJ
8,631 posts, read 12,919,945 times
Reputation: 5766
Talking about it vs. actually doing it are two different things.

Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 04-30-2014 at 01:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,164,132 times
Reputation: 16936
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Talking about vs. actually doing it are two different things.
True, or we'd be scattered pieces by then. Or the big states would have made themselves into mulpile little states.

Most of the proposals come from people with a particular political bend and the just want to nest with their own kind. This didn't work out well overall for medieval europe and wouldn't now. One of the east west splits in California was especially careful. The counties in the eastern side of the state were all conservative and mostly rural. They skipped around thos which weren't in the central area, and actually split I believe Riverside between the rural eastern side and the built up western side. I'll bet the counties and parts of counties they didn't want would have been all for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,164,132 times
Reputation: 16936
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Tom was a great character but he was a pacifist. He wouldn't fight back. That's how the term 'Uncle Tom' is used today. To describe someone who will not fight back, who just sits and takes it... Someone who does NOT rock the boat..
The thing is, in normal human terms, he is the norm. People develop all sorts of rational reasons to keep things as they are, even if they are bad. But the bad you know is worse than the unknown. This is why most rebellions only happen when things get so bad that that unknown couldn't be as bad as their reality. The difference between a leader of the people who makes them rise, and an antisocial extremist can be simply if the majority are willing to actually fight. If it was in your average person to stand up and demand change, then this would be a much different world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 02:28 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,906,291 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
This didn't work out well overall for medieval europe and wouldn't now.
The irony is that it didn't work for the Confederate either. Asides the strong pro Unionist in Virginia and North Carolina towards the latter part of the war the Confederacy was on the verge of breaking apart at the seams as a result of petty state jealousies, out and out opposition to the demands of the central government from everything from troops to rations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Somewhere flat in Mississippi
10,062 posts, read 12,712,992 times
Reputation: 7168
If at first you don't "sucede"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Earth
4,505 posts, read 6,455,242 times
Reputation: 4962
Quote:
If at first you don't "sucede"...
Cry, cry and then?



The cessation of the secession session was a success!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:22 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,512,599 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=ovcatto;34572853]Actually the "specious argument" which Madison proclaimed "crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession," was put forth by Senator Daniel Webster in 1830 during his debate with Senator Robert Hayne regarding the right of states to nullify Acts of the Congress.
Not sure what you are driving out, OV...(and again, like I said earlier, even though it gets heated and sure should, you are a worthy opponent...) But...

Long before the Southern states seceded, the notion (as you seem to agree with in some ways), had been put forth in a serious manner. For instance, the New England states in 1812 and, later, over the annexation of Texas. Webster was all for this "theory"...until it came to Southern states doing so and removing the said states as the North's "cash-cow". And that is what it was. The South paid something like 75% into federal coffers -- yet made up only 25% of the population.

To continue, as you well know, budget bills originate in the House of Representatives, and it was controlled by the northern states...and the distribution (almost like it does today, in fact!) was spending it for the latter's own benefit for northern industrial interests...

Quote:
As for your tortured attempt to draw some equivalency between colonies throwing off rule not freely enterd suing for independence and the people of the various states who voluntarily join into a pact to establish a perpetual union is by definition a logical fallacy.
Of all the arguments made in our discussion/debate...this one is the most illogical.

You are simply "arguing from result"...which is the real "logical fallacy."

But I agree with you on at least one point. That is, there WAS a difference in what the 13 American colonies did vis a' vis the Lower South states in individually seceding. To wit:

The population of the colonies were officially British citizens. Not sovereign and independent states. And, like it or not, actually subject to the true definition of "treason" and all punishment such entailed (hanging or firing squad), if the former had lost. Is that true or not?

On the other hand? The Treaty of Paris spelled out clearly the new status of the colonies as now being independent states. They entered into a voluntary compact with one another for practical reasons....but as sovereign and independent states...the original confederacy, if you will...

I cannot emphasize enough (even though I realize you will not agree with it, and that is fine), that all the South ever desired was to go its own way in peace. It offered every "olive branch" in the world to do just that. But Lincoln chose to use armed force to coerce a people who had never done the North any wrong and eventually cost the lives of over half a million men, both South and North? What was the point? Why not, except to keep the South's tax money, was the purpose of what even Horace Greely advised against...

Hell, let me put it this way, and tell me what you think...

Do you honestly believe that any state would have ratified the Constitution if there had been some wording in, say, the preamble, which went along the lines of:

"We the people of the United States, collectively, and in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this unalterable Constitution for the United States of America."

Also, just to mention, your earlier argument referencing and taking advantage of the term "United States" in the Constitution, takes a little advantage of that the said term was not really much used as a collective in the early days. That is, the State Department and all prior to the WBTS usually phrased it as "these united states", confirming their actual identity as to what they really were....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top