A Division of the US
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. ISO #1

    A Division of the US

    TIME's caption of the POTY cover made me think about this ("President of the Divided States"). Given the increasing tension between states, do you believe the US will stay united in your lifetime? I'm well aware of the Civil War, but that was in 1860, when foreign powers couldn't capitalize on foreign wars in a matter of hours. A war over secession now would mean a scramble for hegemony between China, Russia and Europe, and a world war with today's technology would mean Armageddon. The only quick way for a war over secession to happen is with nuclear weapons, and the day a state nukes another is the day that Russian, European, and Chinese troops fly in to "depose the oppressive regime".

    No matter what the Constitution says, nobody who voted for Clinton is happy that Clinton can lose with a substantial popular vote. It's constitutional and fair, but it leaves a bad taste. The electoral college is undeniably a huge source of tension between states, as it's essentially Affirmative Action for votes. If you've ever felt offended by AA in real life, you can probably assume that's how most Californians/New Yorkers feel about the election. Funny enough, I bet Trump would have won the popular vote if that's how the election was designed (Millions of Republicans probably stayed home in CA/NY), but the EC puts on the illusion of Trump being vastly less popular, and that's all it takes for blue states to feel like their votes matter less than red states.

    I think the US can pull off West Coast + New England/Rust Belt + Southwest + Midwest/West partition. Maybe Midwest/West states joining the other three due to the landlock. Whether or not I want that depends on how well the political tensions defuse over the next 16 years. I have finals so I can't contribute to much to this discussion until the weekends.
    Spoiler : Orpz FM History :

    FM17 - Won, FM18 - Won, FM19 - Won ,FM20 - Loss, FM21 - Won, MVP, FM22 - Host Canceled, FM23 - Won, FM24 - Hosted, FM25 - Won, FM26 - Loss

  2. ISO #2

  3. ISO #3

    Re: A Division of the US

    I think the interpretation of Affirmative Action has been maligned by the right-wing fake news machines. But that's a discussion for another time.

    Anyway, Hillary's lead now extends beyond 2%. 51-49. This goes beyond what the Electoral College can justify as "farmers' rights." She won by a solid lead.

    Now if the EC vote for her, which they should do, DC will operate as it has for the past 8 years. Not great, but it could be worse.

    If the EC elect Trump the US, and then the rest of the free world, are FUBARd. He's already chosen THREE military leaders for his Cabinet, a fracker for the EPA, and he wants the head of Exxon (who got a big deal award from Putin) to be Secretary of State.

    He'll turn this place into a militarized oligarchy. Workers will have no rights, nor will women, nonwhites, non-xtians, LGBTQs, nor will anyone that fails to kiss the Donald's ring.

    Things could not be worse.

    I've been around long enough. Most of you weren't born during the Rust Belt era, and most of you are too young to fully understand what went down during the Cheney Administration. I remember. The signs are nearly identical, except this time they're much larger and a stronger shade of red.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  4. ISO #4

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    I think the interpretation of Affirmative Action has been maligned by the right-wing fake news machines. But that's a discussion for another time.

    Anyway, Hillary's lead now extends beyond 2%. 51-49. This goes beyond what the Electoral College can justify as "farmers' rights." She won by a solid lead.

    Now if the EC vote for her, which they should do, DC will operate as it has for the past 8 years. Not great, but it could be worse.

    If the EC elect Trump the US, and then the rest of the free world, are FUBARd. He's already chosen THREE military leaders for his Cabinet, a fracker for the EPA, and he wants the head of Exxon (who got a big deal award from Putin) to be Secretary of State.

    He'll turn this place into a militarized oligarchy. Workers will have no rights, nor will women, nonwhites, non-xtians, LGBTQs, nor will anyone that fails to kiss the Donald's ring.

    Things could not be worse.

    I've been around long enough. Most of you weren't born during the Rust Belt era, and most of you are too young to fully understand what went down during the Cheney Administration. I remember. The signs are nearly identical, except this time they're much larger and a stronger shade of red.
    I'm still amazed at how a Manhattanite billionaire playboy with a gold-plated house became the symbol of populism. This campaign will be studied for decades.

    Pic related, it's the home of the common man
    Spoiler : Orpz FM History :

    FM17 - Won, FM18 - Won, FM19 - Won ,FM20 - Loss, FM21 - Won, MVP, FM22 - Host Canceled, FM23 - Won, FM24 - Hosted, FM25 - Won, FM26 - Loss

  5. ISO #5

    Re: A Division of the US

    Also it gives me hope for an Elon Musk presidency. The man totally wants to enslave humanity with robots and will certainly go Dr. Evil upon election but fuck it robots are cool

    Edit: nvm forgot he wasn't born in the US
    Last edited by Orpz; December 8th, 2016 at 11:16 AM.
    Spoiler : Orpz FM History :

    FM17 - Won, FM18 - Won, FM19 - Won ,FM20 - Loss, FM21 - Won, MVP, FM22 - Host Canceled, FM23 - Won, FM24 - Hosted, FM25 - Won, FM26 - Loss

  6. ISO #6

  7. ISO #7

    Re: A Division of the US

    That's really your dad's hotel, Banana?

    Trump's place looks nothing like it. There is such a thing as too much gold, read tacky. Tacky piled on top of more tacky.

    Your dad's hotel has unique and very beautiful light fixtures, and the rest of the room is well-balanced.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  8. ISO #8

    Re: A Division of the US

    I think it will stay united.

    The states that could be self sustaining generally give more to the fed than the fed gives them. If they tried to leave it would make all the other states worse off so they would push against it or even end up like in the civil war forcing the states to stay.
    The states that leach off the fed taking more than they give would have strong incentive to stay in the United States.

    In either situation as a whole all the states would be worse off. For example if Texas became its own country they would probably maximize their industrial economy. Things like air pollution would be relaxed quite a bit because we just don't have to deal with our air pollution over here. Wind currents carry it to the north east and it screws up those peoples lives. Overall many people would suffer and few would gain.

    Also most states that 'get along' and have common political views that would make sense for them to be grouped together. But generally the states that get along have common economies. If the stats poor as fuck they will push for a larger fed and more donations from that fed. This can only work if other states with stronger economies put in more money than they take out. Block a bunch of states together that take more than they give and their system collapses. And if your not grouping states together that have common political views what the hell is the point of breaking the country apart. It would just be the same problems on a smaller scale. (Although I would love to live in an America with no Flordia, California or New York)
    Last edited by Helz; December 9th, 2016 at 12:59 AM.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  9. ISO #9

    Re: A Division of the US

    Helz, go read your history books.

    All those states in the Land o' Cotton banded together and lost to the heavily industrialized North back in the 1860s.

    It's good to have friends, yes but it's better to have useful friends.


    Any state leaving the Union has to generate its own economy, its own military, its own infrastructure... Folks in Rhode Island and Connecticut have that kind of money, but no one else does.


    If we're redistributing land masses I could live with a North and a South California, and have Texas split up into thirds or fourths. Alaska I'd leave huge because there's only half a million people in the whole state. But they'd all still be part of the US. Florida's full of military, old people, and poor folks, plus they get lotsa hurricanes there, they can't afford to break up.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  10. ISO #10

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    That's really your dad's hotel, Banana?

    Trump's place looks nothing like it. There is such a thing as too much gold, read tacky. Tacky piled on top of more tacky.

    Your dad's hotel has unique and very beautiful light fixtures, and the rest of the room is well-balanced.
    no it's a mormon temple. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...kZRgFi53v0M%3A
    Quote Originally Posted by PowersThatBe View Post
    Shut up cow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Did you just fucking call him a cow?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    No, he played as well as he could. He had you right in the palm of his fucking hand all game and you STILL don’t get that. He played you like a fucking fiddle, and it was so obvious and it pains me that nobody else saw it.

  11. ISO #11

  12. ISO #12

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    Helz, go read your history books.

    All those states in the Land o' Cotton banded together and lost to the heavily industrialized North back in the 1860s.

    It's good to have friends, yes but it's better to have useful friends.


    Any state leaving the Union has to generate its own economy, its own military, its own infrastructure... Folks in Rhode Island and Connecticut have that kind of money, but no one else does.


    If we're redistributing land masses I could live with a North and a South California, and have Texas split up into thirds or fourths. Alaska I'd leave huge because there's only half a million people in the whole state. But they'd all still be part of the US. Florida's full of military, old people, and poor folks, plus they get lotsa hurricanes there, they can't afford to break up.
    Yeah, During that time the north was heavily industrialized and started exploiting the south. The south was forced to pay roughly 80% of the nations taxes and the money was used to develop infrastructure in the north. The south realized they had absolutely no way of fighting it so they decided to secede. Look at the Kansas Nebraska act or the abolitionist movement in the north if you want to make the slavery argument but it was just about money. The south wanted to peacefully walk away and the north knew they would be loosing out on some major benefits so they started a war.
    After the war they decided to frame it as a fight over human rights so they would not look so bad even though the north widely used slave labor. They chose to demonize the south's practices as a result of a book called 'uncle toms cabin' that pretty much created the picture of slavery that you probably comes to mind when you think of slavery. Some racist white guy treating people like livestock and abusing the shit out of them even though this was very rarely the case.

    The truth is that no state can secede. People like to say Texas can because it is the only state that joined the nation as a sovereign nation but in reality Texas just has the ability to split into 4 states which would greatly multiply its influence in the electoral college (Although we are also the only state that owns our coast line.) As far as realistic ability yeah, Texas could totally pull it off. If Texas was its own country it would have the 12th largest economy in the world. If your talking economic dependence I actually think places like Delaware, Illinois and Nebraska are the most independent. Connecticut has a great economy but I really don't think Rhode Island is anything special..

    Regardless like I said before any state that decided to secede would do so because it benefits them and this would extremely likely be detrimental for the other states. The union would not allow it to happen and there would be another civil war because people are greedy as shit and don't want to let go of something that benefits them.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  13. ISO #13

  14. ISO #14

  15. ISO #15

  16. ISO #16

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Yeah, During that time the north was heavily industrialized and started exploiting the south. The south was forced to pay roughly 80% of the nations taxes and the money was used to develop infrastructure in the north. The south realized they had absolutely no way of fighting it so they decided to secede. Look at the Kansas Nebraska act or the abolitionist movement in the north if you want to make the slavery argument but it was just about money. The south wanted to peacefully walk away and the north knew they would be loosing out on some major benefits so they started a war.
    After the war they decided to frame it as a fight over human rights so they would not look so bad even though the north widely used slave labor. They chose to demonize the south's practices as a result of a book called 'uncle toms cabin' that pretty much created the picture of slavery that you probably comes to mind when you think of slavery. Some racist white guy treating people like livestock and abusing the shit out of them even though this was very rarely the case.
    The way I heard it the exploitation came [i]after/i] the War, with the Carpetbaggers.

    And anytime someone is granted ownership of another human being, that's racist white guys treating people like livestock.

    The truth is that no state can secede. People like to say Texas can because it is the only state that joined the nation as a sovereign nation but in reality Texas just has the ability to split into 4 states which would greatly multiply its influence in the electoral college (Although we are also the only state that owns our coast line.) As far as realistic ability yeah, Texas could totally pull it off. If Texas was its own country it would have the 12th largest economy in the world. If your talking economic dependence I actually think places like Delaware, Illinois and Nebraska are the most independent. Connecticut has a great economy but I really don't think Rhode Island is anything special..
    I know no state can secede. Splitting Texas won't necessarily help the EC, there are some blue spots. Rhode Island is full of millionaires. Between them they can afford to keep the state running. What does Nebraska have? A drought can destroy their economy.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  17. ISO #17

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    What did I just read
    I am just saying, If the war was about slavery why the fuck didn't the north free the slaves in the territories that it had the ability to do so? To be blunt the influx of slaves escaping from the south to the north with legislation still in place that obligated the north to treat slaves as the property of the south enlisting into the military pretty much obligated the emancipation proclamation. The greatest cause of the civil war was a result of geography necessitating industrial focus in the north and agricultural focus in the south creating economic and population density disparity. The North needed the agricultural products and exports to sustain their lifestyle while the south did not need the north at all. Calling human rights the focus of the civil war is just silly even if you made an argument centered around the abolitionist movement its utterly impossible to logically push that the north was acting out of care for their fellow man.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  18. ISO #18

  19. ISO #19

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    And anytime someone is granted ownership of another human being, that's racist white guys treating people like livestock.
    I really don't like this view. To have an rational conversation about slavery the very first and most important thing to do is separate the concepts of racism and slavery. For thousands of years slavery existed in productive ways such as if someone racked up too much debt and could not manage their life they would work as a slave until they paid their debt or forever if it was large enough. If you look at the core concepts of slavery it still exists today just with a different name and face in our prison systems. Draw back to Egyptian slavery and its a totally different model that was no less appropriate than Englands concept of superior nobility or any other nations concept of royalty. The idea that 1 person is worth more than another has always existed and will always exist even if you care to draw parallels to celebrities. The tools used to control and motivate people may change but economic and social disparity will always exist. People just magnify and demonize the social stereotype presented in 'Uncle Toms Cabin" and are generally incapable of looking past it when considering slavery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    I know no state can secede. Splitting Texas won't necessarily help the EC, there are some blue spots. Rhode Island is full of millionaires. Between them they can afford to keep the state running. What does Nebraska have? A drought can destroy their economy.
    I was referring to their economy in relation to their contribution to the country. Sure Rhode Island may be rich but they are probably around the same level as Texas as far as what they actually contribute to the nation. And honestly thats just a result of that state being the 'place to be' a couple of decades back. On an international scale its what Dubai is today. Rich people buying shit because its expensive and trendy.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  20. ISO #20

    Re: A Division of the US

    Indebted servitude was slavery just as was owning a complete stranger that had been kidnapped from his homeland.

    You have some really Scummy views on human rights.

    Your historical "knowledge" is clearly based more on opinion than fact.

    /out.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  21. ISO #21

    Re: A Division of the US

    @Helz , you're going to need a citation for the South paying 80% of the nation's taxes. But I would suggest to you that this claim simply doesn't pass sanity checks. If the South was capable of spending so much more in taxes, why wouldn't it have been able to outspend the North during the Civil War? (in fact, the North outspent the South by about 2:1)

    However, there is a reason historians agree that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Leaders of the South left behind writings and transcripts of their meetings about why they seceded, and that reason was the preservation of the institution of slavery.

    You can also disentangle US slavery from the racism of slave owners all you want, but it's still a clear abuse of human rights. The fact that there were some benevolent slave owners does not mean they had a right to own slaves. Yes, there was such a thing as indentured servitude, but it was entirely a different institution from plantation slavery; entering servitude was voluntary and temporary. There is a world of difference between performing manual labor to pay off your debts and being forcibly bound to slavery.

    Slavery is not merely thinking one person is worth more than another. Slavery means denying that the other person deserves even basic rights. Sure, some people might "value" Kim Kardashian more than they "value" me, but that doesn't mean I wake up in the morning unable to choose how my day will go. It's an entirely inappropriate comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrow View Post
    What. You got me. Stop unvoting and stretch my neck, dammit.

  22. ISO #22

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    @Helz , you're going to need a citation for the South paying 80% of the nation's taxes. But I would suggest to you that this claim simply doesn't pass sanity checks. If the South was capable of spending so much more in taxes, why wouldn't it have been able to outspend the North during the Civil War? (in fact, the North outspent the South by about 2:1)

    However, there is a reason historians agree that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Leaders of the South left behind writings and transcripts of their meetings about why they seceded, and that reason was the preservation of the institution of slavery.

    You can also disentangle US slavery from the racism of slave owners all you want, but it's still a clear abuse of human rights. The fact that there were some benevolent slave owners does not mean they had a right to own slaves. Yes, there was such a thing as indentured servitude, but it was entirely a different institution from plantation slavery; entering servitude was voluntary and temporary. There is a world of difference between performing manual labor to pay off your debts and being forcibly bound to slavery.

    Slavery is not merely thinking one person is worth more than another. Slavery means denying that the other person deserves even basic rights. Sure, some people might "value" Kim Kardashian more than they "value" me, but that doesn't mean I wake up in the morning unable to choose how my day will go. It's an entirely inappropriate comparison.
    Sure. I will dig something up. But this 80% figure is a result of the federal tariffs the north placed on traded goods. Things like cotton (Which was a massive income at that time) were heavily taxed as exports and at the time the south was a large supplier to large portion of europe. When the war started the north had naval control and also took new orleans which was a massive trade port and those two factors utterly crippled the souths ability to export. In addition framing the war as a war over 'slavery' resulted in England finding a new supplier for the exports they had previously received from the south and at the time England was by far the largest importer of southern goods. This meant that the south had lost both the majority of its ability to export as well as the ability to sell even if they were able to move the goods. It absolutely strangled the southern economy.

    If human rights were the cause of the civil war why didn't the north free the slaves in the provinces it had control of? It very literally was not until they was a massive portion of slaves enlisted in the union armies that slaves were freed and as I said before- that was borderline out of necessity. The primary factors of slavery being an issue in the war were economic and had nothing to do with human rights.

    I am not just trying to disentangle slavery from racism; I am pushing that the widely accepted perspective is terribly flawed. Its some white guy whipping the shit out of a black guy for not picking cotton fast enough or something. What about the indian slaves? What about the mexican slaves? Plus as I brought up before the primary attributes of slavery still exist today. It may have a pretty face on it but a large portion of people today are not any more free than an egyptian slave was.

    I have to ask you. What is a basic right? At what point do incentives cross over into the loss of a choice and freedom?

    I could wake up today and decide to rob a bank. Its within the realm of reality but there are incentives not to. Accepting that fact means you also have to accept its just a measurement of society's punishments for breaking established rules.

    Accepting that your concept of 'freedom' is only a measurement of what someone can do without being punished you can step further into established rules on thousands of things that break a normal citizens freedom to protect interests. For (an exaggerated) example- If you have a toy car and want to trade it for a toy doll legally you can't. You would need to quantify the value of each item and pay taxes on them or risk loosing your money or freedom. Or if you want to go to the store at 3 in the morning and the road is totally empty you cant drive 80 miles an hour on a highway that says the speed limit is 60. There are established incentives that limit your freedom and prevent you from doing whatever you want. Even when they present no harm to anybody you are restrained by society.

    Now if you accept that its just a question of degree- At what point does an 'incentive' cross into a loss of freedom? And when laws exist that specifically target races how is it any worse to remove this freedom through laws than to designate a person as having lower value than others?

    I would imagine you would like to draw out the 'person being whipped for not picking cotton' perspective but if you look at forced manual labor that happens in american public and military jails these exact same behaviors exist. Inmates must preform or endure the punishments that come with refusing. Are we really any better of a society because now instead of physical abuse we jump to solitary confinement? And honestly even if your going to push the whole exaggerated 'uncle toms cabin' perspective is the psychological abuse resulting from isolation any better than physical abuse?

    I personally don't think that much has changed from then to now outside of the labels we put on things. Sure its a little better with the lack of people being captured and sold as a market but the truth is that the powerful still do what they want and the weak still endure what they must. The winners of wars frame their cause as just and their enemies cause as wicked. My entire point is that human rights and an extremely small role in the civil war and that although slavery is a morally bankrupt practice the current perception of it is batshit crazy. Its like saying because you own a dog or horse you will abuse the shit out of it if it provides some service. Sure it happens on occasion but people naturally care for those they provide for.

    In order to have an objective discussion about slavery racism has to be removed. In order to take an objective perspective on history you must measure the perspective you are being fed. Its like a guy that sells apples telling you that eating an apple a day will keep the doctor away. If your going to measure a society's actions experts in that society are not objective sources. Kind of unrelated but I think its comical that although America on a global scale has total shit for education they are moderately dominating in controlling academic perspective. Thats a conversation for another day though..
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  23. ISO #23

    Re: A Division of the US

    I guess I will have to actually hunt for the tax contribution difference. 2 seconds of googling I grabbed this up though

    https://www.emarotta.com/protective-t...the-civil-war/ This seems pretty objective and underscores what I was saying about the souths dependency on foregin trade.

    https://philmagness.com/?p=753 This is specifically arguing against Tarriffs being a cause of the civil war but underscores that it was brought into place 3 years before the war and was a result of private interests influance in the market. It reflects how these policies specifically punished the south although it does not reflect how they rewarded the north or how the north controlled legislation at the time.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  24. ISO #24

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Yeah, During that time the north was heavily industrialized and started exploiting the south. The south was forced to pay roughly 80% of the nations taxes and the money was used to develop infrastructure in the north. The south realized they had absolutely no way of fighting it so they decided to secede.
    No, they were much more buttblasted about Lincoln forcing them to abolish their slavery practices.

    From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:
    These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

    We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
    A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

    On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

    The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
    From Mississippi's Declaration of Secession:
    In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
    From Georgia's Declaration of Secession:
    The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

    A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.
    From Texas's Declaration of Secession:
    Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.

    She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
    Spoiler : Orpz FM History :

    FM17 - Won, FM18 - Won, FM19 - Won ,FM20 - Loss, FM21 - Won, MVP, FM22 - Host Canceled, FM23 - Won, FM24 - Hosted, FM25 - Won, FM26 - Loss

  25. ISO #25

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Regardless like I said before any state that decided to secede would do so because it benefits them and this would extremely likely be detrimental for the other states. The union would not allow it to happen and there would be another civil war because people are greedy as shit and don't want to let go of something that benefits them.
    It would be difficult to have a civil war with nukes lying around. Also, America fighting itself would be an invitation for all the major world powers to try to take the top spot. Foreign support would flow in to prop up the seceding state(s) and draw out the war. A civil war to keep a rogue state in check would take much longer than anticipated, especially if that state is California, New York, or Texas. The Union might see it fit to just establish a close relationship with the seceded states, much like how the EU isn't openly hostile to Britain.
    Spoiler : Orpz FM History :

    FM17 - Won, FM18 - Won, FM19 - Won ,FM20 - Loss, FM21 - Won, MVP, FM22 - Host Canceled, FM23 - Won, FM24 - Hosted, FM25 - Won, FM26 - Loss

  26. ISO #26

    Re: A Division of the US

    Russia would sneak right in there. Oh, wait. Trump opened the door. Whoops.
    Quote Originally Posted by PowersThatBe View Post
    Shut up cow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Did you just fucking call him a cow?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    No, he played as well as he could. He had you right in the palm of his fucking hand all game and you STILL don’t get that. He played you like a fucking fiddle, and it was so obvious and it pains me that nobody else saw it.

  27. ISO #27

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Orpz View Post
    No, they were much more buttblasted about Lincoln forcing them to abolish their slavery practices.

    From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:



    From Mississippi's Declaration of Secession:


    From Georgia's Declaration of Secession:


    From Texas's Declaration of Secession:
    I have never read this. It is very interesting. Maybe those states did succeed because they wanted to maintain slavery. But this does not change the fact that the north did not free slaves as they took over territories and championed their war under economic pretences and not human rights. They did not give any rights to slaves unless they were willing to die for the benefit of the north until there were so many they had no choice but to give slaves rights. Also the fact that the North held slaves. Or that the driving factors of slavery in politics were economic and not human rights.

    Make no mistake I am not saying the southern view was appropriate or moral. But they acted out of self interest to preserve their way of life after being exploited and were forced into war. I am just saying our concept of slavery is heavily skewed and that the war is framed to be about human rights for the winning side to take the moral high ground.

    To put it into different terms- Morally disagreeing with another party's decision does not justify violence. The only moral justification of violence is if they frame it in the position of human rights but if it was about human rights why didn't they provide those rights to people while they were willing to sacrifice a massive portion of the populous for them? This in itself reflects a logic gap any mafia player should blatantly recognize. The concept of fighting for human rights while neglecting human rights is mutually exclusive and points to the fact that human rights were used as a justification for otherwise inappropriate action. You have to ask yourself if the north's goal was not for the benefit of its fellow man what could possibly justify sacrificing that much of its population? And if the public believed in it why were there massive riots against the war on a scale that America has never seen sense?

    My unfounded assumption is that it was just rich people doing fucked up shit to maintain and gain power. I would genuinely like to hear other theories. I know its unpopular but I hate seeing such contrived perspectives presented as fact when basic reasoning screams that it comes from an unbiased position.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  28. ISO #28

    Re: A Division of the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Orpz View Post
    It would be difficult to have a civil war with nukes lying around. Also, America fighting itself would be an invitation for all the major world powers to try to take the top spot. Foreign support would flow in to prop up the seceding state(s) and draw out the war. A civil war to keep a rogue state in check would take much longer than anticipated, especially if that state is California, New York, or Texas. The Union might see it fit to just establish a close relationship with the seceded states, much like how the EU isn't openly hostile to Britain.
    I don't think nuclear threat would be any better than civil war and that action taken by the parent country would be very critically looked upon by the global community. Using nukes against a peaceful populous that was just attempting to separate would be on par with the genocide of a race.

    For a nuclear situation just remember Ukraine. Ukraine was part of Russia. They had lots of Russian nukes and chose to separate from Russia. The leaders of that nation used those nukes to dictate border terms. Fast forward quite a while and you have a portion of Ukraine that wanted to rejoin Russia. Russia invades military installations and returns a small portion Ukraine to Russia and they are viewed as imperials. Compare that to the US invading Iraq under false pretenses of WMD's and taking a chunk of land for a permanent base after deposing its government.

    Its all about how you look at the situation. And its pretty much always about money. When the rich wage war its the poor who die but when the war is won its the rich who benefit.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  29. ISO #29

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •