North American Confederated Union?

[longeyes]

Secession isn't the future, expulsion is.

 

[WT]

A few years ago (1999) I attended a business seminar at the University of Texas- Austin. They predicted that by 2010 the majority of the residents in Texas would be Hispanic. Once the Hispanics realized their political power, Texas would change significantly.

There was some talk of a Southern California - Arizona - New Mexico - Texas 'comonwealth' of Hispanic States closely associated with Mexico. Florida would increase its close association with Cuba and Central America.

I think we in the USA are looking at interesting times in the next 50 years.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think we in the USA are looking at interesting times in the next 50 years.

Yes. And we allowed those in charge of our nation to do all of this to us intentionally. Things like this don't happen by accident. There is an imposed agenda in operation here which is hostile to the wishes of 90% of our population.

 

[Deavis]

I disagree with your analysis of the potential for viable independence of many states. Texas, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Washington/Oregon could easily become independent political entities.

I agree with your statement on the viability of a nation composed of various confederated states. My statement was directed at the viability of a single independent state (e.g., Arizona withdrawing from the Union in isolation). Your point that several of these states, working in union, however, is most certainly possible. I actually see this as possibly the ONLY way to heal the schism between red and blue, and for the one not to rule rampant over the other.

The viability of seperate confederacies v. a single united U.S has already been addressed, oh about, 200 some odd years ago. I suggest reading the Federalist papers 6-9 (although the 1st 10 would be good too) and you will realize that the guys who framed the Constitution were pretty smart. Dividing up our contry into confederations would be a bad idea, however, returning it to the model that the Framers intended would solve all the problems people list as reasons to divide. There is no need for a divide when each State sets its own agenda and the national government sticks to its 18 enumerated powers.

 

[Maxwell]

I was watching the TV this morning, and as usual they had the talking heads on (Talking about iraq).
A democratic rep got on the tube and said "The people in Iraq dont care about democracy, they just want the lights to work and the trains to run on time. They would be happy with a benevolent dictatorship".

It got me to thinking.

1. Im not sure I want to put a person in charge of my country who believes that dictators and tyranny have a rightful place in this world.
Do I look stupid? (rhetorical question)

2. Alot of the people who come to America have their reasons. Those who left mexico might not want to mirror that political mess in their new home so quickly. Just like the Irish, Jewish and Chinese grew tired of their old lives and adopted the American way quickly.

I think when these people find their voice and pry themselves loose from poverty, they wont be so predictable as the left thinks.
Even if they are the population of texas, it will still be texas....with a few more mexican holidays.

So long as the governments state to state dont vary to too much of an extreme, I dont see the US splitting up or kicking anyone out anytime soon.
Not unless something extreme happens.

 

[longeyes]

Im not sure I want to put a person in charge of my country who believes that dictators and tyranny have a rightful place in this world.

You mean Iraq or the U.S.?

 

[longeyes]

While we play intellectual parlor games about how/if Iraq might be partitioned we may want to ask ourselves whether we're not setting up a scenario where that is exactly what's going to happen here.

 

[Maxwell]

You mean Iraq or the U.S.?

Take your pick.
The same conditions that would enable radical change to a new government system here, would open the doors to all the old old political arrangements as well.

In the US we have many ethnic groups that dont agree and might fight if the conditions are right. Its unrealistic to think we will always be wealthy and well off. There may come a day when we are also vunerable to trying someones radical solutions.

We could find ourself stuck in the exact same conditions that tear Iraq apart right now. When pushed to that extreme, should our elected leadership simply accept dictatorship here in the name of making things run smoothly?

 

[robertbank]

Nothing ever stays the same folks. The USA and its people are no different then any other country. Things change, challenges change and we adapt to the changing times. In the last century, women gained the right to own property, the right to vote. Segregation only ended in the US 40 odd years ago. During the building of our railways in the 1870's Chineses labourers were not considered people.

Humans being what we are, adapt to the times. You either adapt or you perish. In many ways we boomers probably lived through the best of times. The next generation will face equal challenges and I have confidence they will meet those challenges and survive. It won't be the world we knew but ours isn't the one our ancestors knew either.


My own ancestors left Fleshing Meadows, N.Y. and headed into Ontario because they thought the thirteen were going to hell in a handbasket, to liberal was one comment in a journal. Twenty years later along came the revolution and the rest as they say is history. LOL

Take Care one way or another your Republic and on our Constitutional Monarchy will survive.

Bob

 

[NickEllis]

I actually don't think comparisons of what happened in 1864 and the reality of present day USA have much in comparison. If 12 northern states wanted to become more loosely affiliated with the centralized WashingtonDC powers that be, I don't see civil war breaking out, and I don't see widespread opposition. We are talking about a much larger area than just Old North/South territory, the population base has spread out, the "North" no longer has a monopoly on the industrial infrastructure, etc. I think its an entirely different scenario alltogether. Besides, can you really see the population of NYC or LA joining up to stop a succession? I highly doubt you would get the population of Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, etc... to join such an armed effort. Besides, we really aren't talking about succession here, we are talking about a more loosely defined union between states. Noone, I believe, wants to dissolve the union. Rather, the point is to weaken Washington's hold on things by readjusting the political stranglehold. Enough people distrust government these days, on both sides of the aisle, that I think there would be widespread support.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

We are talking about a more loosely defined union between states. Noone, I believe, wants to dissolve the union. Rather, the point is to weaken Washington's hold on things by readjusting the political stranglehold.

So you are talking about a return to Constitutional federalism? Well, join the club. Conservatives (the real ones, not the Neocons calling themselves conservatives), libertarians and Constitutionalist in the United States have been pushing for that forever. So far our efforts have been futile, as the nation moves steadily closer to pure consolidated central unconstitutional (read "despotic") government.

 

[TallPine]

Rather, the point is to weaken Washington's hold on things by readjusting the political stranglehold.

That is just simply not going to happen peacefully.

Either some states revolt, or the DC Empire collapses under its own weight, or possibly both at the same time.

 

[carp killer]

Either some states revolt, or the DC Empire collapses under its own weight, or possibly both at the same time.

There is alot of grumbling up in MT, ID, ND, SD, WY. And across the border in AB and SK. Interesting times....

 

[antarti]

What moral high ground do we have these days to actually revolt against our government, when rather we are revolting against the "people" themselves, that is, the other fifty percent who actually DO favor the socialist/fascist system we see arising in the modern day? Suddenly, it seems more like civil war than revolt against tyranny, with one half subjecting the other to their own preferred form of government. Whereas tyranny can and should be resisted, how does one fight a popular movement at least as powerful as one's own?

I am amazed the thread got this far. This is a non-starter.

Wait until those "Socialist others" figure out that their standard of living is far worse than their liberty-minded neighbor states. They will (following long established tradition) blame it on "unfair" trade, exploitation, child/slave labor, too low taxation, etc. in their Conferederated neighbors. Then it will escalate to hostility and massive lobbying/lawyering/spoils/bad-legislation/election-rigging and you end up right back where we are today. Sounds like history repeating to me.

Edit to add: When have socialists ever left well-enough alone?

We are talking about a more loosely defined union between states. Noone, I believe, wants to dissolve the union. Rather, the point is to weaken Washington's hold on things by readjusting the political stranglehold.

Not gonna happen unless every Federal building/employee is driven out of a state, no more tax revenue is passed up to the Feds, and you have citizens/police/NG all in agreement to keep them out, with arms (then you can re-negotiate terms). In fact, replacing the FRN (Federal reserve Note) intra-state would be the most positive step, then FRNs could be bought-sold as needed for "foreign" trade. Odds on that are slim, and until then, the Fed bankers manipulate the fortunes of all.

Secession isn't the future, expulsion is.

If that isn't the shortest, sweetest post I've ever seen on THR, I don't know what is.

 

[tellner]

G-ds I hope it never happens. Canada would become an appendage of the US. Everything unique about it would disappear. It's nice to have an alternative just a few hours away even if I don't agree with everything the do.

 

[woerm]

US of America thoughts

back in college I had a discussion w/ a Canadian at the school I was attending, and surmized based on the process leading to the 'failed' Mech Lake accords that were supposed to keep Qubec happy, that the westen and eastern parts of CA were more likely to be successful as US states.

He was appalled,

but going forward I think over the next decade as the Qubec/Toronto bs elevates and the paralysis of the centeral Gov't increases there may be efforts on the West and East parts of CA to add themselves to the US as they don't share much w/ the Quebicos(?) or the nut jobs in
Toronto/Montroel(?).

The Canadians have a unique culture, yes. I would love to see about 7 more Red states and the addition of the CA group would help propell going forward a more civil disucssion on health care funding and access.

I keep noting to the Canadians, if they go the statehood route make sure all property in their jurisdictions is surveyed and titled or the inferior interior dept gets title to rape/pillage/plunder.

.02 worth

full disclosure

Great Uncle flew for the RCAF in WWII so I am kind of hoping the Canadians find their way into our group vs trying to go alone as individual countries

but note TX did so for 10yrs before it was annexed by the US.

r

 

[Woodland_Annie]

Alot of the people who come to America have their reasons. Those who left mexico might not want to mirror that political mess in their new home so quickly. Just like the Irish, Jewish and Chinese grew tired of their old lives and adopted the American way quickly.

I think when these people find their voice and pry themselves loose from poverty, they wont be so predictable as the left thinks.
Even if they are the population of texas, it will still be texas....with a few more mexican holidays.

When a group (Mexicans, Irish, women) becomes part of the political system, they tend to contribute to that system without radically changing it. Usually the only thing that changes is the face or surname of the person(s) in power. There is no fundamental shift in the system nor any restructuring.

I believe the US will become stronger and more powerful for the foreseeable future before it collapses under its own weight. I don't believe those in power would ever accept a "confederation of states" with or without secession.

 

[NickEllis]

Those in power....

I believe the US will become stronger and more powerful for the foreseeable future before it collapses under its own weight. I don't believe those in power would ever accept a "confederation of states" with or without secession.

I agree, the "those in power" will never accept it. But at what level does it matter? I mean, truely, what level of coersion can be brought to bear, in the practical levels, to the highest extreme? Obviously, armed forced compliance is the ultimate extreme. But I don't believe that will happen. Beyond that, what are we looking at, that the "powers won't let us do it". really? and how so? Everyone has talked about "them not letting us do it", but all illuminati conspiracies aside, what exactly are we talking about? Economic coersion? Just an honest question.

Nick

 

[spartacus2002]

When a group (Mexicans, Irish, women) becomes part of the political system, they tend to contribute to that system without radically changing it. Usually the only thing that changes is the face or surname of the person(s) in power. There is no fundamental shift in the system nor any restructuring.

Except when they don't become part of the political and/or cultural system. We currently have a situation where certain racial groups believe they have more power and a larger voice by (a) remaining separate in their own distinct racial/national origin blocs and (b) seeking not to become part of the system, but to bend the system to their culture.

Remember, the vast majority of American immigrant political history has been of different European nationalities integrating into a country made up of descendants of Europeans. Now, with the Mexican border problem, we have a nation-within-a-nation that is not making great strides to assimilate and in fact has vocal irredentist groups advocating their cultural/political separatism

I believe the US GOVERNMENT will become stronger and more powerful for the foreseeable future before it collapses under its own weight. I don't believe those in power would ever accept a "confederation of states" with or without secession.

Fixed it for you.

 

[CAnnoneer]

If the Civil War demonstrated anything, indeed it is that a permanent peaceful reduction of the power of the federal government is impossible.

The natural instinct of every bureaucracy is to perpetuate and expand itself, just like it is the natural urge of every authority to expand its influence. The WashDC critters follow that trend very well, at the expense of common sense, truth, long-term solvency of the country, or individual rights. Things like WoT are serendipitious gifts to statists of every persuasion, as they offer a nice justification for a few turns on the powergrab ratchet.

A government so ravenous for taxes as ours is, can only sustain itself by cannibalizing internally and expanding externally. Tax rates cannot be increased easily because the rich would not have it and they pay for the politicians and judges, so the other solutions are:

1) cannibalize the middle class (ongoing)
2) a skyrocketing unsustainable foreign debt (already happened)
3) increase of the tax base by illegal immigration (happened and intensifying)
4) increase of the taxable base by economic expansion - outsourcing (India, China), free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA)
5) increase of the taxable base by territorial expansion ( Mexico and Canada within 50 years)
6) eventual increase of tax rate for the middle class "to save the country" from the deficit (see Hillary 2008)

When you follow the money and understand the ravenous perverse logic of it, all colorful pebbles move into place nicely, revealing the Roman mosaic.

 

[CAnnoneer]

As far as cultural divides go, viewing the country as fifty-fifty is grossly overstated, IMO. That is what the politicians want us to think, because of the old "divide and conquer". I bet the crushing majority agree on most basic concepts, those being the ideas of the Founding Fathers. That's what being American is all about.

The anomalous behavior is concentrated in a few terribly twisted, terribly loud extremes that Manewolf pointed out. I bet the hardcore religious zealots are about as puny in numbers as the Berkeley-type pseudorevolutionaries.

What helps both groups lay claim to relevance is the peculiar human behavior wherein determination and ardor of one's (albeit erroneous) beliefs are construed as strength and truthfulness by a lukewarm, gullible mass of followers. Hesitance is not an evolutionarily favorable trait due to the fight/flight expediency, so unfortunately we are stuck with this cognitive fault on a very deep level as a species.

Perhaps a simple way to resolve the "cultural gap" is to stop being swayed by fear into perpetually putting in office "the lesser of two evils". It is that mentality that empowers special interests and a handful of philosophical extremists who blatantly demonstrate an increasing "cultural gap" with 95% of the country...

 

[LAK]

Tallpine

At some point the DC Empire must collapse under its own weight of debt and beauracracy - as did the USSR

That's the idea. Except that when such a collapse occurs - someone still has to pay off the debt and the debtors remain slaves to the creditors.

When we "won" the "War of independence" from the Crown - it did not wipe out the debt.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[ctdonath]

It's not a matter of red-vs-blue states, it's rural-vs-urban. Look at the voting patterns in precinct-level detail and you'll see the stark reality; rural areas are red, urban are blue, practically down to street level. The blue states are geographically mostly red. Example: consider that most of New York would like to seceed from New York City; 2-3 other cities aside, the rest of the state is "red"; even California is mostly red save a tiny blue fringe down the left side. It's just that the left-leaning types like to live in heaps.

Methinks the main reason we don't have a civil war or secession yet is there is not a geographic line psychologically suitable for division. Separating red from blue means cutting off the cities from their food sources - subsequent survival would be short.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The EU is trying to be the next Holy Roman Empire.

With the USA as its hinterland providing the soldiers for its army?

Or, is the USA and the EU more like the east-west empire of Rome
and Constantinople?

No matter how you try to cut it on oil, the USA being in the Middle
East is more of a benefit to the Euros than to us.

But, yeah, the EU is running most of the show and you'll see many
of "our" current leaders in business and government retire to places
in the EU. It's all stage play for us unwashed when someone comes
on Foxnews talking about the US as the #1 superpower when we
owe all of these other countries money, they are propping up our
$, and we couldn't even conduct a ground battle against Russia or
China.

Imagine Aristide in Haiti about a week before he got on a plane to
escape "his" country and you'll also get a sense of the loyalty of
our business leaders who continue to close US factories and outsource
all those hi-tech jobs that were supposed to stay here.

But, like the Roman Circus, just keep the entertainment in the coliseum
going and ignore the smoke from the fire in the other end of the city.

Nope nothing going on --just watch the lions tear the Christians apart
and listen to the lovely violin music playing in the distance......

Yes, my fellow Romans! Support your Patron this election and throw
your voting chip at the man who will give you a crust of bread for your
work! Ah, savor the taste of your "freedom"....booohahaha

 

[longeyes]

If the Civil War demonstrated anything, indeed it is that a permanent peaceful reduction of the power of the federal government is impossible.

The natural instinct of every bureaucracy is to perpetuate and expand itself, just like it is the natural urge of every authority to expand its influence. The WashDC critters follow that trend very well, at the expense of common sense, truth, long-term solvency of the country, or individual rights. Things like WoT are serendipitious gifts to statists of every persuasion, as they offer a nice justification for a few turns on the powergrab ratchet.

A government so ravenous for taxes as ours is, can only sustain itself by cannibalizing internally and expanding externally. Tax rates cannot be increased easily because the rich would not have it and they pay for the politicians and judges, so the other solutions are:

1) cannibalize the middle class (ongoing)
2) a skyrocketing unsustainable foreign debt (already happened)
3) increase of the tax base by illegal immigration (happened and intensifying)
4) increase of the taxable base by economic expansion - outsourcing (India, China), free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA)
5) increase of the taxable base by territorial expansion ( Mexico and Canada within 50 years)
6) eventual increase of tax rate for the middle class "to save the country" from the deficit (see Hillary 2008)

When you follow the money and understand the ravenous perverse logic of it, all colorful pebbles move into place nicely, revealing the Roman mosaic.

Nice.

+1