The same people I meet that argue for "State's rights" are also the same people that "conveniently" forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
The 1861 Morill Tarrif returned tariffs back to the rate they were at 4 years prior when northern state republicans held the house. The claim that the Morill Tariff created a constitutional crisis is absolute nonsense. Southern democratic states proposed allowing individual states to set their own tariffs which makes zero sense because every importer will simply choose the state with the lowest tariff. This insane demand was simply a pretense to cry foul and secede when they didn't get it.
The "states' rights" in question was the right to compel free states to uphold the institution of slavery, specifically by returning people who had escaped slavery back the slavers in their slavery-loving slave states.
It WAS about the only state right there was any disagreement on: the right to own slaves. There weren't any other matters addressed by the Missouri compromise.
But, hey, maybe I'm missing all the non slavery bills proposed by the coincidentally slave states that were opposed by the North? Give us a list, MFs
It was both. Same as usual, rules for me and not for thee. They wanted to take state's rights away from the non-slave states while keeping state's rights themselves. Pure hypocrisy, as always.
They even wrote the Confederate constitution so that states specifically did *not* have the right to abolish slavery. It wasn't about rights as any sort of principle whatsoever.
I know it wasn't about "states' rights" as a principal. It was about *their* states having the rights they wanted while taking rights away from non-slave states. They did frame the first half as if they cared about states' rights on principle, but that was of course just hypocritical bullshit.
But they also took rights away from 'their' states -- the right to convert from a slave state to a free state. That's the point I was getting at. It wasn't about keeping rights for themselves -- it was always just about keeping slavery and racism intact.
Not Red states; slave states. The two aren't the same. The big issues were a) free states were supposed to cooperate and return escaped slaves per some of the compromise agreements preceding the civil war, and b) new states couldn't choose to allow slavery north of the Mason Dixon Line. I believe there was also a complaint that southern states were overtaxed according to them because slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which was 3/5ths too much in the southern opinion.
It was actually the idea of the slave states to count a slave as 3/5th of a person, so that the slave states would have greater representation than free states in the electoral college. The complaint of over-taxation of the south is a myth spawned by willful disinformation. The south was largely poor and paid less taxes than free states. The wealthy, who owned slaves & whose use of slaves devalued labor, thus keeping the south poor, paid high taxes reflective of their incomes.
If you read the Confederate Constitution, it clearly says that no state may inact any law restricting slavery or offering sanctuary for slaves. So it isn't even about states' rights; it's about codifying slavery into the Constitution so states have no right to end slavery.
You're asking if parts of the country that still have people who call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" might differ in their teaching of the events surrounding said war?
Yes, but what I'm saying is that in the Confederacy Constitution they made it illegal to outlaw slavery. So the whole "we're joining the Confederacy our states can have more freedoms and less federal control is at best a weak argument.
I'm not even arguing that the union was altruistic in this. Seems they freed the slaves more to disrupt the southern economy than any equity reasons. Just making the point that "it was for states rights" is at best a very simplistic white washing of it.
It's time for California to separate. There's no point to them paying for everyone elses expenses when the fed won't even give them disaster relief if needed.
Its ok, start the process, it will be long. Those who dont want to go can relocate and be with their countrymen. Id also like to welcome southern Nevada to join as well. We can and should seriously form our own coastal country. Time to fucking leave.
Yup. If a local majority of people in Easter WA/OR don't want to go with the majority, then borders are sacrosanct and they either respect democracy or pack up and leave. But also if the newly forming country needs parts of an existing state, let's redraw borders while we're at it.
California has been talking about seceding since I was a kid lol...not to mention the peeps who want it to break up into 2 or three smaller states. I don't think it is likely to happen.
California, as well as texas, are regulars with the scede threat. Heres the problem. The states are eternally bound to the union as all the federal gov has to do is tell them “ok but you take your portion of the debt with you” and it stops all further discussion as the debt is so large it is unobtainable to pay it off immediately, as the debtors are under no obligation to give the scedee (is that a word?) a credit line.
Shirking debt to other countries is not how you would want to start off in the world as a fledgling country. Remember that debt is not to the US, but to countries like france and other allies. That would not set a good precident for their relationships.
Yeah it's not like the US paid their 'debt' in "back taxes" after they successfully kicked the British out. Besides, they've been paying far more in taxes than they get back in federal funding, right? (not counting subsidies to Silicon Valley that went directly to companies). That seems like it'd eliminate most of the debt.
They can go right ahead, a lot of people would celebrate it happening. At least until it collapses into a puppet state controlled by China or Russia anyway.
Clearly you've neglected your history studies. Why is Korea divided? What happened in Vietnam? How come the violence in the middle east just won't end? The answers all point to larger countries installing puppets and manipulating them for a tactical or economic advantage. Since the newly-independent California would be scrambling to stabilize its economy and defend itself, it would be all too easy for other nations to install puppets in it and exploit it to their advantage.
California is the world's 5th largest economy. The only problem with seceding would be dumbshit republicans using the Russian playbook and invading because they need to "save them". Also, what you're saying is hilariously shallow.
I'ma be real here CA would have roving gangs of partisans fighting each other and robbing people just like we did during the Civil War. Southern CA and Tulare County wanted to join the South and volunteers had to come down from up north to occupy them. But the north wasn't solid either. The San Jose Fire Station flew a Secessionist flag. Some dudes from Stockton made a raiding party to steal from "Union men" in San Joaquin county and beyond. There's enough red counties that there'd be guerillas
I'm not real confident in our chances against a narcissist sociopath dictator with nukes, (and probably chemical and bioweapons they don't advertise) and the world's largest military budget, air force, navy (we have a very long coast!).
The constitution is dead. Accept it and realize your state is about to become a slave state unless you get the fuck out. They're going to come for you either way, might as well give yourselves a chance to fight.
... ? If California separates they will inevitably form trade relations with Canada and become a major economic powerhouse. Not that they aren't already, but the US is totally leeching off them.
so your take is "take the economic value of california, separate it from the rest of the country and embrace it. fuck the people outside california. is that your point?
Technically it would be a separation and then application process as far as I understand it, but hey, we declared a wing of a hospital to be Dutch territory just to preserve a royal lineage... So... Shouldn't be too difficult to make happen.
It's the premise of several of Richard Morgan's sci-fi books. The west coast Rim States and the east coast North Atlantic Union (with EU? I think) curving around the Confederated Republic, aka "Jesusland"
What?? Not even close. It comes from the fact that if it’s own country would be one of the largest economies in the world and politically is constantly being hampered in progressive reforms. Since the early 90s in my memory it’s been floated as an idea. Almost every region or state has its own idea of succession
Yeah look at the date 2016 when they were heightening the left v blue narrative making Californians seem not American. But it doesn’t mean they invented it or it’s strickly a Russian troll thing. Like “the thin blue line” was heightened and exaggerated by Russian trolls but it’s been a mantra for decades before then
We don't want our new name to have any attachment to "Amerika". "Cascadia" has been in the shared consciousness since 1972. . The "Yes California" movement, also known as "Calexit," was founded in 2015.
AuthGaeuvyen
As if they could read
devasto
The same people I meet that argue for "State's rights" are also the same people that "conveniently" forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
Svartsinn
The 1861 Morill Tarrif returned tariffs back to the rate they were at 4 years prior when northern state republicans held the house. The claim that the Morill Tariff created a constitutional crisis is absolute nonsense. Southern democratic states proposed allowing individual states to set their own tariffs which makes zero sense because every importer will simply choose the state with the lowest tariff. This insane demand was simply a pretense to cry foul and secede when they didn't get it.
mksu
The "states' rights" in question was the right to compel free states to uphold the institution of slavery, specifically by returning people who had escaped slavery back the slavers in their slavery-loving slave states.
idrinkcheapbeer
The Cornerstone Speech is right there for everyone to read.
Mack1986
I think all but one secessionist states made slavery their primary point in the opening paragraph. The outlier state waited till the second
8647taco
Texas I believe
ChorizoPig
South Carolina, the first state to secede, mentioned slavery 18 times in their articles of secession IIRC. Doesn't't leave much doubt.
FrankTheThunderbird
emu314159127001
It WAS about the only state right there was any disagreement on: the right to own slaves. There weren't any other matters addressed by the Missouri compromise.
But, hey, maybe I'm missing all the non slavery bills proposed by the coincidentally slave states that were opposed by the North? Give us a list, MFs
WeatherWiz
It was about states rights. They just forget to finish the sentence: “It was about states rights to have slavery”
NotSomoneElse68
They were actually >against< States' Rights. Specially, the Northern States right to return runaway slaves.
talinuva
Correction: It was about removing other states' right to offer sanctuary to runaways.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
It was both. Same as usual, rules for me and not for thee. They wanted to take state's rights away from the non-slave states while keeping state's rights themselves. Pure hypocrisy, as always.
Gogoglovitch
They even wrote the Confederate constitution so that states specifically did *not* have the right to abolish slavery. It wasn't about rights as any sort of principle whatsoever.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
I know it wasn't about "states' rights" as a principal. It was about *their* states having the rights they wanted while taking rights away from non-slave states. They did frame the first half as if they cared about states' rights on principle, but that was of course just hypocritical bullshit.
Gogoglovitch
But they also took rights away from 'their' states -- the right to convert from a slave state to a free state. That's the point I was getting at. It wasn't about keeping rights for themselves -- it was always just about keeping slavery and racism intact.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nellisir
Not Red states; slave states. The two aren't the same. The big issues were a) free states were supposed to cooperate and return escaped slaves per some of the compromise agreements preceding the civil war, and b) new states couldn't choose to allow slavery north of the Mason Dixon Line.
I believe there was also a complaint that southern states were overtaxed according to them because slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which was 3/5ths too much in the southern opinion.
NunyaBNess1
It was actually the idea of the slave states to count a slave as 3/5th of a person, so that the slave states would have greater representation than free states in the electoral college. The complaint of over-taxation of the south is a myth spawned by willful disinformation. The south was largely poor and paid less taxes than free states. The wealthy, who owned slaves & whose use of slaves devalued labor, thus keeping the south poor, paid high taxes reflective of their incomes.
adjacentengels
If you read the Confederate Constitution, it clearly says that no state may inact any law restricting slavery or offering sanctuary for slaves. So it isn't even about states' rights; it's about codifying slavery into the Constitution so states have no right to end slavery.
greenfox311
Not really
[deleted]
[deleted]
pandaman1982
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
necrojoe
You're asking if parts of the country that still have people who call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" might differ in their teaching of the events surrounding said war?
AnyRandomBob
They mandated slavery be legal in the Confederacy. It wasn't about states rights to chose the way they wanted. Period. End of story.
[deleted]
[deleted]
AnyRandomBob
Yes, but what I'm saying is that in the Confederacy Constitution they made it illegal to outlaw slavery. So the whole "we're joining the Confederacy our states can have more freedoms and less federal control is at best a weak argument.
I'm not even arguing that the union was altruistic in this. Seems they freed the slaves more to disrupt the southern economy than any equity reasons. Just making the point that "it was for states rights" is at best a very simplistic white washing of it.
Johnsky
It's time for California to separate. There's no point to them paying for everyone elses expenses when the fed won't even give them disaster relief if needed.
MoonBoots92
Please take MN too
dissonantcognition
NH too?
Drew442
I agree ita time for us to leave, our states leaders need to start pursuing this right now
TheobromineAddict
If we keep our taxes that currently support red states, will we have enough cash to fund a reasonable military? (It's about $800 billion / year.)
BonelessBones
Can Vermont join, too? We are pretty far away, though..
MotherEffinSatan
Civil War (2024) was a prophecy
Comet260
CA, OR, WA and HI should leave together.
SuperFerret
Hawaii should be its own kingdom again.
freemab
Have you been to the eastern parts of WA and OR? They don’t want to leave.
DoctorWookie
Some of us do. More than I'd thought. Not enough, but it's a start.
MorrighanWolf
Can just get rid of the nazi trash.
Drew442
Its ok, start the process, it will be long. Those who dont want to go can relocate and be with their countrymen. Id also like to welcome southern Nevada to join as well. We can and should seriously form our own coastal country. Time to fucking leave.
Margrave9000
Yup. If a local majority of people in Easter WA/OR don't want to go with the majority, then borders are sacrosanct and they either respect democracy or pack up and leave. But also if the newly forming country needs parts of an existing state, let's redraw borders while we're at it.
freemab
Many want to join Idaho already.
TheBeastlyBeauty
West coast + North East, but trade NH for Minnesota.
TheCryptid
As a canadian I propose we merge with the blue states separating from the US
CuileannDhu
And give Alberta to the US
TheCryptid
deal
Johnsky
Lol. Can you imagine Canada becoming the entire US eastern and western coastlines with the US being an impoverished long flat prairie in the middle.
zqwzzle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
redbear1999
California secedes from the union because the south is full of dumb shits.
ilovetraveler
All the blue states should seceed. We're the ones paying for everything.
Monkeynutsjoe
Take the rest of the West Coast with you too, leave the US with no pacific shipping at all.
battery1979
You think the cheeto would let that happen before burning it to the ground?
ThatsJustWhatWeCallPillowTalkBaby
California has been talking about seceding since I was a kid lol...not to mention the peeps who want it to break up into 2 or three smaller states. I don't think it is likely to happen.
Johnsky
The US is scuttling itself, you don't think California won't detach before it sinks them with it?
myfirstandlastpostever
Anyone read William Gibson recently? Sure this is a sub point in his Bridge novels.
ThatsJustWhatWeCallPillowTalkBaby
Can't wait for the cybernetic dolphins and first in line to get some canine teeth grafted into my jaw. Fuckkit, embrace it.
thebogusman101
California, as well as texas, are regulars with the scede threat. Heres the problem. The states are eternally bound to the union as all the federal gov has to do is tell them “ok but you take your portion of the debt with you” and it stops all further discussion as the debt is so large it is unobtainable to pay it off immediately, as the debtors are under no obligation to give the scedee (is that a word?) a credit line.
Johnsky
Whose to say California even acknowledges their debt? Seems like they would just shirk that.
thebogusman101
Shirking debt to other countries is not how you would want to start off in the world as a fledgling country. Remember that debt is not to the US, but to countries like france and other allies. That would not set a good precident for their relationships.
Ivain
Yeah it's not like the US paid their 'debt' in "back taxes" after they successfully kicked the British out. Besides, they've been paying far more in taxes than they get back in federal funding, right? (not counting subsidies to Silicon Valley that went directly to companies). That seems like it'd eliminate most of the debt.
BeastofKnowledge
Just as the ancient prophecies foretold.
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Is this that "Jpeg video" I hear so much about?
Johnsky
... It's called FLASH
Fantelroy
AHHH, SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE!
Johnsky
I was more of a fan of captain power.
elvianempire
hokay
Denvercoder09
So. Here's the Earth.
Drew442
Alaska is on its own. They made their choice
redditturnedagainstus
Maybe, but there's two Alaskas now too, so we got that going for us, which is nice.
Johnsky
I hope they enjoy apologizing.
RickTheMarshallSelke
Two Alaskas?
Circosys
Oh look! Arizona Bay!
PlacentaEaters
But I am le tired
chiefrunswithscissors
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dmtrbmM3dTgxZTA1NWY5ZGZ5YzZxMzRuNXpveWVjZjZ6OWg1czhjcyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/26AHNCbyrYgpQ1naw/200w.webp
Johnsky
Ok, well, have a nap... Zen fire ze missilez!
WoofWoof21
And Russias like
AAAAAH MOTHERLAND!!!!
Johnsky
And Canadas like ; what's going on eh?
OdinYggd
They can go right ahead, a lot of people would celebrate it happening. At least until it collapses into a puppet state controlled by China or Russia anyway.
ThoseRulesArentReal
Or invaded by aliens. There’s no evidence or connection to why that would happen
OdinYggd
Clearly you've neglected your history studies. Why is Korea divided? What happened in Vietnam? How come the violence in the middle east just won't end? The answers all point to larger countries installing puppets and manipulating them for a tactical or economic advantage. Since the newly-independent California would be scrambling to stabilize its economy and defend itself, it would be all too easy for other nations to install puppets in it and exploit it to their advantage.
AshenRaine
California is the world's 5th largest economy. The only problem with seceding would be dumbshit republicans using the Russian playbook and invading because they need to "save them". Also, what you're saying is hilariously shallow.
RevolutionOnHerLips
I haven't lived on the west coast for over 20 years now but if they did try to separate from this nightmare I'd try my hardest to get there again.
Raeilgunne
never lived there, would be packed up in a U-Haul westbound within 6 hours.
Phantomzero17
I'ma be real here CA would have roving gangs of partisans fighting each other and robbing people just like we did during the Civil War. Southern CA and Tulare County wanted to join the South and volunteers had to come down from up north to occupy them. But the north wasn't solid either. The San Jose Fire Station flew a Secessionist flag. Some dudes from Stockton made a raiding party to steal from "Union men" in San Joaquin county and beyond. There's enough red counties that there'd be guerillas
hyperchondriac
I'm not real confident in our chances against a narcissist sociopath dictator with nukes, (and probably chemical and bioweapons they don't advertise) and the world's largest military budget, air force, navy (we have a very long coast!).
gimpyfloyd6
Yes but if we did the would come after us. because leveing the union is unconstitutional and suddenly they would care about the constitution.
Johnsky
The constitution is dead. Accept it and realize your state is about to become a slave state unless you get the fuck out. They're going to come for you either way, might as well give yourselves a chance to fight.
idrinkcheapbeer
is it really your ethos to abandon half a population who feels the same way you do?
Johnsky
... ? If California separates they will inevitably form trade relations with Canada and become a major economic powerhouse. Not that they aren't already, but the US is totally leeching off them.
idrinkcheapbeer
are you not a californian? is california not part of the usa? are you espousing the belief that california should break off and form their own thing?
Johnsky
I'm Canadian pal.
idrinkcheapbeer
so your take is "take the economic value of california, separate it from the rest of the country and embrace it. fuck the people outside california. is that your point?
JaneDoe2023
Yes, now you're getting it.
Froggie243
That's the thread, yes
squirrelgirl86
Literally my version of the American dream at this point is Canada taking over Maine. Please? Brothers?
Johnsky
We don't do the whole empire conquest thing. But if maine were to separate and apply, I'm confident we could work out something fair to all parties.
TheCryptid
Im canadian and I would welcome blue states becoming Canadian provinces. The era of the canucks
squirrelgirl86
Well the thing with Maine is we're pretty half and half, unfortunately. :(
TheCryptid
mmmmm then we may need to split Maine and take the better half
squirrelgirl86
This would be somewhat annoying geographically, as is the southern half that's more liberal
servingmytimeinusersub
NY would be on the same page. But the distance doesn't help
Pulsifer
Secede to Canada.
Johnsky
Technically it would be a separation and then application process as far as I understand it, but hey, we declared a wing of a hospital to be Dutch territory just to preserve a royal lineage... So... Shouldn't be too difficult to make happen.
TheCryptid
Imagine both coasts seceding and the red states are literally boxed in and cut off from the rest of the world
Pulsifer
It's the premise of several of Richard Morgan's sci-fi books. The west coast Rim States and the east coast North Atlantic Union (with EU? I think) curving around the Confederated Republic, aka "Jesusland"
veedubfreak
Hey now, Colorado helps
SaintSleepyWeasel
Yes but you're surrounded by morons. Sorry.
ImprovizoR
California seceding is a Russian narrative. So you're either a Russian troll, or an idiot who fell for their propaganda.
JaneDoe2023
I'm not a troll, and had the idea that it's time to separate the country several years ago. Maybe I am an idiot, but it's not all Russian propaganda.
SuperFerret
California has floated secession for a long ass time. Texas too.
freemab
Automatic Noodle. Read it.
ThoseRulesArentReal
What?? Not even close. It comes from the fact that if it’s own country would be one of the largest economies in the world and politically is constantly being hampered in progressive reforms. Since the early 90s in my memory it’s been floated as an idea. Almost every region or state has its own idea of succession
ImprovizoR
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
ThoseRulesArentReal
Yeah look at the date 2016 when they were heightening the left v blue narrative making Californians seem not American. But it doesn’t mean they invented it or it’s strickly a Russian troll thing. Like “the thin blue line” was heightened and exaggerated by Russian trolls but it’s been a mantra for decades before then
Froggie243
Lol no
ImprovizoR
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
AshenRaine
I've literally never heard that. Ever.
ImprovizoR
Well, that must mean it never happened! Except: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
rossimus
Can Oregon and Washington come too?
Johnsky
Canada would happily establish free trade with Cascadia.
TruthSlap
Please include BC. I'm tired of being beholden to French speakers and Albertans
Johnsky
Honestly, now is not the best time to be alienating the quebecois.
belatedboring
Should, cut off all the Pacific ports and canada can toll them.
MoonBoots92
Pleeeeease include MN.
WeHaventMet
Washingtonian here. I'm all for the United States of Cascadia.
Hooffartedyeahhh
Same!
WoodORama
Can Minnesota be a satellite republic?
tEMPuSER632
I wouldn't mind if we applied for membership with Canada,
StarfishSex
Canada checking in, if you get your buddies (WA, OR, CA) we will definitely take you.
tEMPuSER632
❤️
Johnsky
Hey woah, we are a democracy... I concur. That's 2 of 2. Proceed.
darthnerdus6236
The US can even take Alberta.
CoffeeMakesMeTwitchy
I'm hoping for that. Doesn't sound easy
ChickenLord666
Yes. Let’s make the left coast our own country. Let’s give Nevada the choice to join also.
Kreviathan
One step closer to Fallout's California Republic
Johnsky
Hurry the hell up with the two headed bear!
SaintSleepyWeasel
Absolutely we love you second floor neighbors.
stonetemplefox05
We could call it "the American Pacific"
TheobromineAddict
We don't want our new name to have any attachment to "Amerika". "Cascadia" has been in the shared consciousness since 1972. . The "Yes California" movement, also known as "Calexit," was founded in 2015.
stonetemplefox05
You know what? YOU'RE OUT! What do you think about THAT?!
TheobromineAddict
Relief.