schlimm No sam1: You always insist you right, even when the facts argue otherwise, and then get sarcastic.
No sam1: You always insist you right, even when the facts argue otherwise, and then get sarcastic.
I did not say that I am right. I am placing a different emphasis on historical events. Stating that someone who disagrees with you is missing your points is a put down. You can make your point without putting people down.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm You totally miss the point. Of course, military force permitted the choice by the people to continue to be without interference from rebel units. But the military did not cause West Virginia to breakaway from VA. Parts of other states of the Confederacy were occupied by union forces, but did not have conventions to break away from their mother states.
You totally miss the point. Of course, military force permitted the choice by the people to continue to be without interference from rebel units. But the military did not cause West Virginia to breakaway from VA. Parts of other states of the Confederacy were occupied by union forces, but did not have conventions to break away from their mother states.
Oh, I forgot. People who disagree with you don't get it. Thanks for reminding me.
Victrola1 The new republic should consider a new law. All railroads shall be of 6 foot gauge. This will stop invaders from using the republic's rail system to their advantage.
The new republic should consider a new law. All railroads shall be of 6 foot gauge. This will stop invaders from using the republic's rail system to their advantage.
That is the prime reason why Russia established a 5 foot gauge for its railroads.
Enemy troops will not be able to simply cross into conquered territory unhindered. Their Amtrak cars will not be compatible with the republic's track.
greyhounds It never was on the rails. This is the most off topic political thread that I've seen. We gotta get out of this place If it's the last thing we ever do We gotta get out of this place 'cause girl, there's a better life for me and you
It never was on the rails. This is the most off topic political thread that I've seen.
We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do
'cause girl, there's a better life for me and you
Agreed! Lets put it to bed.
Bucyrus D.CarletonBecause the "people that were ticked that their guy didn't win" are a just a few percentage points fewer then those folks who supported the guy that did win. We are a completely polarized nation. The last time that happened was the 1860s. Things didn't turn out too well back then either. Yes, all this talk of secession is an expression of a polarized country. Some may feel that the prospect of a state seceding is just too radical and farfetched to contemplate. But the fact that there is so much talk of multiple states wanting to secede is actually about as radical as one state actually seceding. I think we're in for a rough ride.
D.CarletonBecause the "people that were ticked that their guy didn't win" are a just a few percentage points fewer then those folks who supported the guy that did win. We are a completely polarized nation. The last time that happened was the 1860s. Things didn't turn out too well back then either.
Yes, all this talk of secession is an expression of a polarized country.
Some may feel that the prospect of a state seceding is just too radical and farfetched to contemplate. But the fact that there is so much talk of multiple states wanting to secede is actually about as radical as one state actually seceding. I think we're in for a rough ride.
I think that we are missing a key point here. There is no serious talk in Texas by responsible citizens about succeeding from the union.
The United States, as well as most other countries, has always had a lunatic political fringe. Mercifully, they have never been more than a tiny fraction of the population. I don't see anything today that leads me to believe that any mainstream Texan is in favor of succession from the United States. This discussion has gone off the rails big time.
schlimm
schlimm Although McClellan's forces were victorious in West Virginia, they did not enter until June, 1861, move south on June 27, and gain victory until July 11. Already the legislators from the western counties in Virginia General Assembly had voted against the Ordinance of Secession on April 17. At the election on May 23, 1861, secession was ratified by a large majority in the state as a whole, but in the western counties 34,677 voted against and 19,121 voted for the Ordinance. The Second Wheeling Convention met as agreed on June 11 and declared that, since the Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were void. An act for the reorganization to be the legitimate government of all Virginia was passed on June 19. June 20 Francis Pierpoint was chosen by other delegates at the convention to be governor of Virginia, other officers were elected and the convention adjourned. So to state the legal niceties were after the battle is misleading. The process was well underway prior to McClellan.
Although McClellan's forces were victorious in West Virginia, they did not enter until June, 1861, move south on June 27, and gain victory until July 11. Already the legislators from the western counties in Virginia General Assembly had voted against the Ordinance of Secession on April 17. At the election on May 23, 1861, secession was ratified by a large majority in the state as a whole, but in the western counties 34,677 voted against and 19,121 voted for the Ordinance. The Second Wheeling Convention met as agreed on June 11 and declared that, since the Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were void. An act for the reorganization to be the legitimate government of all Virginia was passed on June 19. June 20 Francis Pierpoint was chosen by other delegates at the convention to be governor of Virginia, other officers were elected and the convention adjourned. So to state the legal niceties were after the battle is misleading. The process was well underway prior to McClellan.
And had McCellan been driven out of West Virginia by the Confederates, the territorial outcome would have been? The West Virginia decision was rendered possible by McCellan's victory. Had he not been victorious, it is doubtful that the western counties of Virginia would have been able to break free of Virginia regardless of how the citizens or their representatives voted. The validation of the vote came about because of military conquest; had it gone the other way the vote would have been nullified.
There was strong union sentiment in Texas, Eastern Tennessee, and Northern Alabama. Many of the people in the Texas hill country, as well as those near Munster, Gainesville, etc. in North Texas, were strongly opposed to succession. They were not able to breakaway from the Confederacy because they did not have the military muscle to do it. The military force that holds the ground decides the outcome.
zugmann Whatever happened to people that were ticked that their guy didn't win threatening to leave the country? Now they want to take the whole state with them. What a bunch of whiners. Get over it already - there will be another election before we know it.
Whatever happened to people that were ticked that their guy didn't win threatening to leave the country?
Now they want to take the whole state with them. What a bunch of whiners. Get over it already - there will be another election before we know it.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
West Virginia came about in large part because George B. McCellan moved into the western Virginia counties early in the war and secured them for the union. Had the military outcome been otherwise, the results might have been different. The legal nicieties played out after the outcomes had been decided on the battlefield.
John WR Sam, You suggest there could be some downsides to secession. For example Medicare payments cannot be made to doctors or hospitals in foreign countries with a very few exceptions for hospitals along the border. Medicare payments now made to Texas hospitals would stop. Also, there would be no more border patrol along the Texas--Mexico border and Border Patrol officers along the other borders would most likely live in the US. Not to mention the most important loss: No more Amtrak routes through Texas. Never again would you be able to ride the Sunset Limited to New Orleans or Los Angeles.
Sam,
You suggest there could be some downsides to secession. For example Medicare payments cannot be made to doctors or hospitals in foreign countries with a very few exceptions for hospitals along the border. Medicare payments now made to Texas hospitals would stop. Also, there would be no more border patrol along the Texas--Mexico border and Border Patrol officers along the other borders would most likely live in the US. Not to mention the most important loss: No more Amtrak routes through Texas. Never again would you be able to ride the Sunset Limited to New Orleans or Los Angeles.
I am not advocating succession. Neither is any other responsible person in Texas. This is a nutcase issue that a NY Times reporter has picked-up on and reported out of context.
SCOTUS decisions remain the law until reversed by the court at a later date (by the principle of stare decis) or changed by amendment to the Constitution. The ante-bellum decisions you cite were overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments. White v Texas has never been overturned by a subsequent decision or amendment. That is how constitutional law works.
Generally actions are either banned or a method for undertaking an act is specifically described. The constitution describes no provision for engaging in secession. Secession of counties from one state is a different matter altogether. In 1819, Massachusetts agreed to permit secession if voters in Maine approved. Due to these considerations and rapid population growth, in 1820 Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts. The secession and formation of the state of Maine as the 23rd state occurred on March 15, 1820 as part of the Missouri compromise. Vermont did not secede from either new Hampshire or New York, as it was disputed land and functioned as an independent republic from 1777 until 1791 when it joined the federal union as the 14th state.
West Virginia a special case. It was formed because the residents and legislators from the western counties regarded Virginia's secession from the federal union as illegal. Since the VA Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were declared void and that all who adhered to it had vacated their offices. Those office holders from the western counties who had not voted for secession then declared themselves the legitimate rival government. Later it applied for admission to the Union which was approved in Dec. 1862. Meanwhile, on March 10, 1866, Congress passed a joint resolution recognizing the transfer. The Supreme Court, in 1870, decided in favor of West Virginia.
The US Supreme Court ruling against secession in "Texas vs. White" in 1869 doesn't surprise me, considering the time, four years after the end of a horrific war that lead to 600,000 dead. Court decisions can be affected by the mores and political sentiments of the time. There's the "Dred Scott" decision that said no black man, especially a slave, had any rights a white man was bound to respect. Then there was "Plessy vs. Ferguson" in 1896 that legitimized segregation for any state that chose to practice it. No Supreme Court justice in his or her right mind would make decisions like that today. The fact remains the Constitution still doesn't specifically forbid secession, no matter what the 1869 Supreme Court said.
At any rate, even though secession of states from the Union doesn't make much sense, counties breaking away from states to form new states has happened in the past and for legitimate reasons. Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia are good examples of same. It's happened before, and may just happen again.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
According to 24/7 Wall Street, which is reasonably reliable source, Alaska, Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, New Mexico, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Connecticut, and North Dakota were the top ten states receiving more monies from the U.S. Treasury than they paid in federal taxes. The figures are per capita, which is more meaningful than raw numbers.
According to Ezra Klein, who writes for the Washington Post and Bloomberg, amongst others, Texas was not one of the states that received more from the federal government than it contributed. But it has in the past for a variety of reasons.
States with large military installations, immigrant populations, retirees, etc. get back more than they send to Washington because of federal programs. Virginia has numerous federal installations, including one of the largest Naval ports in the world. And some of the southern states, i.e. Texas, Florida, etc. have a relatively high retiree population that receives Social Security and Medicare payments.
Texas, which has approximately 8.2 per cent of the nation's population, has an estimated1,650,000 or 15 per cent of the nation's illegal immigrants. To help offset the cost of their impact on the state's schools, hospitals, police departments, etc., the state receives federal funds. Also, Texas has the longest border with Mexico of any of the states. The border is guarded by the U.S. Border Patrol, which is paid for by the United States.
Just looking at raw dollars without drilling into the funds flow patterns and the reasons for them is not helpful.
zugmannLast I checked, Texas took more money from the feds than it put in.
Source please.
Bucyrus What it boils down to is the people pulling the wagon want to secede from the people riding in it.
What it boils down to is the people pulling the wagon want to secede from the people riding in it.
Last I checked, Texas took more money from the feds than it put in. Who is pulling who? But this whole secession thing is pure silliness.
John WR Sam, Since you do live in Texas and I don't I certainly respect your opinions of the issue of Texas seceding from the Union. I don't want to make too fine a point of it but it is hard not to notice that 116 thousand Texans disagree with you. True, that is a small proportion of the total number of Texans but simply because other Texans have not signed the petition does not mean they would oppose secession. John
Since you do live in Texas and I don't I certainly respect your opinions of the issue of Texas seceding from the Union. I don't want to make too fine a point of it but it is hard not to notice that 116 thousand Texans disagree with you. True, that is a small proportion of the total number of Texans but simply because other Texans have not signed the petition does not mean they would oppose secession.
John
You are correct. You don't live in Texas. And you have no idea of the sentiments of most Texans. Texas, with a diverse population of more than 25 million, is larger than France. It is one of the most diverse if not the most diverse states in the United States.
OK. But I think the idea that all of the states that voted for Mitt Romney is a bit of a stretch.
Long live the Conch Republic (railway free since 1935)! "We Seceded Where Others Failed."
John WR While we should never say never it is not at all clear to me that all of the states you list would want to secede. For example, I looked up Michigan and Iowa. Barack Obama won those states. Why would a majority now vote to secede? John
While we should never say never it is not at all clear to me that all of the states you list would want to secede. For example, I looked up Michigan and Iowa. Barack Obama won those states. Why would a majority now vote to secede?
It is ture, the LION said MI, but maybe you do not realize that LION thought MI meant Missouri
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion Do not leave out the Republic of North Dakota! Heck Let MT. ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, MI, and IA all secede from the onion, and from a new nation. Call it "New America". According the the Russian example we get to keep all military bases on our land. We issue the New Dollar (ND₴) and refuse any exchange with US$. You cross the border and you can exchange gold for ₴ at any bank that does assay. You want to buy our oil, gas, coal, grain, corn or meat and you pay in ₴. We only exchange for gold. We have no national debt, and our taxes cover out expenses. PERIOD. ROAR ₴
Do not leave out the Republic of North Dakota! Heck Let MT. ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, MI, and IA all secede from the onion, and from a new nation. Call it "New America". According the the Russian example we get to keep all military bases on our land. We issue the New Dollar (ND₴) and refuse any exchange with US$. You cross the border and you can exchange gold for ₴ at any bank that does assay. You want to buy our oil, gas, coal, grain, corn or meat and you pay in ₴. We only exchange for gold.
We have no national debt, and our taxes cover out expenses. PERIOD.
ROAR
₴
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
John WR Murphy, I don't know that secession is a "silly notion." Granted, it has only been tried once and the Civil War decided the issue back then. But things change. I personally disagree with secession but that is not an objective reason to think that it cannot happen. John
Murphy,
I don't know that secession is a "silly notion." Granted, it has only been tried once and the Civil War decided the issue back then. But things change. I personally disagree with secession but that is not an objective reason to think that it cannot happen.
For Michigan, only the Upper Peninsula would secede.
I suspect that there is no clear answer or consensus as to whether secession is a viable option. What is significant, however, is that so many people are talking about it. The key question is why any state would want to secede. Secession is closely associated with the right or duty of revolution. This is serious stuff. It ought to make one wonder why so many people are suddenly talking about it in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.