Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Simbi Laveau

Texas FORMALLY requests secession

278 posts in this topic

You know there is a very easy solution to all this. The US will be disolved and revert to British control. Then your leader, Queen Elizabeth the Second, will restructure your country into a more suitable orginization. We'll test it for a year or so and then the US will be allowed back into the Commonwealth. There, problem solved.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know there is a very easy solution to all this. The US will be disolved and revert to British control. Then your leader, Queen Elizabeth the Second, will restructure your country into a more suitable orginization. We'll test it for a year or so and then the US will be allowed back into the Commonwealth. There, problem solved.

Heh, I think we are more likely to see NHL in hell before that happens. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know there is a very easy solution to all this. The US will be disolved and revert to British control. Then your leader, Queen Elizabeth the Second, will restructure your country into a more suitable orginization. We'll test it for a year or so and then the US will be allowed back into the Commonwealth. There, problem solved.

lol, sure, we kicked brits out with guns before, we'll do it again if we have to.

not that i 'm in favor of any state comming out from the union, it will create more problems than solution. we see how good brake up of ussr worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PETITIONS are filed by PEOPLE who wish that their VIEWPOINT and STANCE be viewed by the federal government.

None of the STATE GOVERNMENTS ENDORSE these.

Oh man, good point past Hasina.

No problem future Hasina. I'd also like to say that even if in some unlikely event that the White House or the federal government signed off on the petitions, it wouldn't mean the state's seceded. They'd then have to file a petition to their state to secede or ask the state government if they wanted to secede. In both cases, it would more then likely never get done. Especially since the federal government will never approve of these silly petitions.

Stop showing me up, past Hasina.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are incorrect. There was a "south" and "southerners". John Adams wanted someone form the "south" (therefore a "southerner") to lead the army in order to assure the "south" was on board with the revolution. The constitutional debate of whether slavery would be allowed in the US was between "northern" and "southern" states. There were also the "middle" states.

James Madison is called the "Father of the Constitution". He was from the "south".

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia and New York were the only states in 1788. And there's a rather large difference between what John Adams considered the south in 1788 and what was "the South" (meaning the Confederate States of America) c.1860 - 1865. BTW, James Madison may have helped draft the Constitution, but again, Gouverneur Morris actually wrote most of it and he was from New York. So no, it wasn't written by a Southerner. There was no meaningful division between North and South in 1788 like there was during the Civil War.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, the USA was founded on secession.

People who call secessionists un-American are very ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, the USA was founded on secession.

People who call secessionists un-American are very ignorant.

That being the case, those against seccession will try to paint those who are for it in a negative light, that can almost be expected. It's already happening.

Edited by WoIverine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being the case, those against seccession will try to paint those who are for it in a negative light, that can almost be expected. It's already happening.

Everything is relative, claiming that those wanting to secede are pro-American is just as ludicrous as claiming that the continental Army was pro-British. What makes the difference between being a traitor or a hero is whether you are successful and whether you are on the winning or loosing side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is relative, claiming that those wanting to secede are pro-American is just as ludicrous as claiming that the continental Army was pro-British. What makes the difference between being a traitor or a hero is whether you are successful and whether you are on the winning or loosing side.

That is relatively true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to see if I can find the one for Washington State, it was pretty amusing from what I glanced at... one of the concessions they asked for was for President Obama to do the Hokey Pokey. Think they're super serious? LOL. At this point, from what I can tell, the rest of the country is just trying to make Texas look like a bunch of asses, and doing it nicely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia and New York were the only states in 1788. And there's a rather large difference between what John Adams considered the south in 1788 and what was "the South" (meaning the Confederate States of America) c.1860 - 1865. BTW, James Madison may have helped draft the Constitution, but again, Gouverneur Morris actually wrote most of it and he was from New York. So no, it wasn't written by a Southerner. There was no meaningful division between North and South in 1788 like there was during the Civil War.

cormac

That would be news to Rhode Island and North Carolina. Since you apparently do not know how many states there were in 1788 I can't put much value on the rest of your "facts".

Once again James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution". Gouverneur Morris headed the committee designated to write the constitution. Most sources I found listed Madison as the primary author.

There were at least one huge difference between the north and south, slavery. To claim there was no "north" and "south" in the late 18th century is like claiming there were only 11 states in 1788, in other words wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to see if I can find the one for Washington State, it was pretty amusing from what I glanced at... one of the concessions they asked for was for President Obama to do the Hokey Pokey. Think they're super serious? LOL. At this point, from what I can tell, the rest of the country is just trying to make Texas look like a bunch of asses, and doing it nicely.

You mean trying to make the people who signed the petition look like asses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean trying to make the people who signed the petition look like asses?

Well they are aren't they ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are aren't they ?

Oh by all means, but many keep using 'Texas' and 'minority of citizens who signed a petition' interchangeably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how it would be if every state in north america was autonomies.

Which would go under and plead for reunion, and which one would prosper?

What has the individual states going for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, very much agree there. There does seem something rather evangelical about him, and some of his admirers. "Now we can promise Hope and Change!" Well, you didn't manage to deliver Hope or Chnage last time, mr. O, what makes you think you're going to be able to now?

Change? that's about all I have to spend now. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic, get over it, people have been doing this since I can remember and most of us never paid it any attention. Why so now? The internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic, get over it, people have been doing this since I can remember and most of us never paid it any attention. Why so now? The internet.

I don't think so, this time the driving force behind it wants to make sure that this is known beyond the local news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be news to Rhode Island and North Carolina. Since you apparently do not know how many states there were in 1788 I can't put much value on the rest of your "facts".

Once again James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution". Gouverneur Morris headed the committee designated to write the constitution. Most sources I found listed Madison as the primary author.

There were at least one huge difference between the north and south, slavery. To claim there was no "north" and "south" in the late 18th century is like claiming there were only 11 states in 1788, in other words wrong.

Rhode Island's date of statehood: May 29, 1790. North Carolina's date of statehood: November 21, 1789. Which means that neither one was a member of the union under the Constitution in 1788.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so, this time the driving force behind it wants to make sure that this is known beyond the local news.

And what better way to spread it around than to spew it all over the web. I thought it was common knowledge this type of thing has always occured. That's what I get for thinking :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of my kids. All excited about moving out at 18 so they don't have to "live under mom and dad's rules".

Move out.

Call us complaining about "being on our own sucks and is hard"!

Idjits.

Nibs

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what better way to spread it around than to spew it all over the web. I thought it was common knowledge this type of thing has always occured. That's what I get for thinking :lol:

Some states actually have one of these every second year, Texas, California and Alaska come to mind. But normally that falls under the chapter cranks and other nutters. Not that I have more regard for the initiators this time but I got to give 'em that they are better organized this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhode Island's date of statehood: May 29, 1790. North Carolina's date of statehood: November 21, 1789. Which means that neither one was a member of the union under the Constitution in 1788.

cormac

So what were these things (most people refer to them as "states") called under the Articles of Confederation? I see the earliest date of statehood is in 1787 (The Date they ratified the Constitution). The US had been in existence from 4 to 11 years (1783 when the Treaty was signed or 1776 when the US declared Independence) by then. So if they were not States what were they? 13 States signed the Articles so NC and RI were States in 1781 but not States in 1787?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what were these things (most people refer to them as "states") called under the Articles of Confederation? I see the earliest date of statehood is in 1787 (The Date they ratified the Constitution). The US had been in existence from 4 to 11 years (1783 when the Treaty was signed or 1776 when the US declared Independence) by then. So if they were not States what were they? 13 States signed the Articles so NC and RI were States in 1781 but not States in 1787?

They were a confederacy that styled themselves as states while not formally recognizing themselves as such until each State ratified the Constitution. Which is why the dates of statehood begin with it and not with the earlier Articles of Confederation. You can quibble that well, they existed before the Constitution, but they don't recognize themselves as States to any meaningful degree until it was ratified. And in 1788, neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina were States under the Constitution which means that there were only 11.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were a confederacy that styled themselves as states while not formally recognizing themselves as such until each State ratified the Constitution. Which is why the dates of statehood begin with it and not with the earlier Articles of Confederation. You can quibble that well, they existed before the Constitution, but they don't recognize themselves as States to any meaningful degree until it was ratified. And in 1788, neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina were States under the Constitution which means that there were only 11.

cormac

When I look at the Articles I see that it is titled: "Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia."

Notice the word "states", "North Carolina", and "Rhode Island, and Providence plantations". It looks, from the terminology, like they were called states before they ratified the Constitution.

Regardless they were differences between the northern "wahtevers" and the southern "whatevers". The differences got worse and led to the ACW. But they existed during the Constitutional Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.