Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty? - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty?

  1. The Northerners were Bigots. It was absurd that the Northerners claimed slaves were abused to any extent when many Northerners were slave owners themselves. Why buy something for the sake of destroying it if it was making you money. Now, look at what the Demorats did to the Blacks, they keep them enslaved to the government and we now have a culture of thugs, entitlements, and so called “Social Justice”, perpetuated by the Demorats.

    Georgia was the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery. Georgia soon found out, however, that it could not compete agriculturally with the other southern colonies without slaves -- so the prohibition was rescinded. The southern states simply felt they could not compete economically without slavery; certainly not for many years. I’m not presenting that as an excuse – just as a reason.

    Here’s something else you need to know about slavery. The institution of slavery was born in Africa (and pretty much only exists in Africa today. Ironic, isn’t it?) Slaves were the spoils of African tribal conflict and warfare. In the 15th century slavery was virtually wiped out in Europe by the emergence of a Christian society. It was the Portugese who, in the mid 1940s, rediscovered slavery, so to speak, in their explorations along the western coast of Africa. Slavery (generally in support of the sugar industry) then started to make its way across the Atlantic and into the Caribbean. From the islands of the Caribbean slavery was then introduced into the southern colonies.

    Now I must ask, where is the Race Pimp Al Sharpton and the NAACP and the DEMRATS For their human rights?? I guess no money in it.

    I also wonder if all those who call themselves ''African American'' know that Slavery still exist in the Continent of Africa?
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Well, it sure ended the issue. I doubt any state will ever try it again.
    Don't be so sure. Two points: "Ever" is a very long time and Georgia didn't have a nuclear attack submarine base in 1861 :)

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinLawyer View Post
    Don't be so sure. Two points: "Ever" is a very long time and Georgia didn't have a nuclear attack submarine base in 1861 :)
    I could see that making things kinda interesting
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  5. #44
    The original "binding document" of this nation, The Articles of Federation, had language in it pertaining to the joining of the States under the document and was "in perpetua".

    At the Constitutional Convention, there WAS discussion for putting the "in perpetua" wording into the Constitution, but considering how well that worked under the "Articles" it was decided to leave it alone.

    Thus, there is nothing in the Constitution legally binding the individual States to the Union. One could say that the Civil War settled the question. Yes. Except to note that the question was settled through force of arms, NOT through Law.

    Given that we pride ourselves for being a Nation ruled by Law, does not this glaring exception to how we are supposed to do things create some "disturbance in the force" (if not some disquiet over the "power" of the Fed, out of context with what was desired and preferred by the "Founding Fathers")?

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  6. #45
    Maybe we can get some of the freeloading welfare states eating at the federal trough to leave.

    Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    I admit to not reading any of the replies but just the title of this thread causes me to reply. States DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS ANYMORE--THE KING IS IN CHARGE--GET USED TO IT OR GET RID OF HIM--HE IS A POX ON THIS COUNTRY AND IF YOU THINK THE FIRST TERM WAS BAD--KINDLY REMEMBER HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE IN THE SECOND TERM AND HAS NOTHING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR AFTER HIS SECOND TERM, UNLESS, OF COURSE, HE DECIDES TO BECOME KING.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,647
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Maybe we can get some of the freeloading welfare states eating at the federal trough to leave.

    Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
    The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005 would cast doubt on the link you posted. Florida in 2005 was the 35th highest in return on their dollars to DC. That means only 15 states got less and Florida was at $0.97 back for every dollar sent. In other words, Florida was paying for other states.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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