What is Digg?242 Comments
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63As much as I like the idea of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence, I fully expect that any real effort to separate from the jurisdiction of the federal United States would be met with exactly the same response it was met by the first and last time it was tried:
Military invasion and forced reintegration.
However, the effort of demonstrating the benefits of throwing off all the chains that can be thrown off is beneficial all by itself. - finalmillenium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45Let's not forget that their is a state that can legally leave the Federated states and DC can't do anything about it. Texas.
At least someone got it right when they were framing their state constitution. - skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41I think it would be more more difficult for the Government to spread propaganda about a seceding state. I mean. the News Media's right there on the east coast. Everybody that lives in New Hampshire has friends and family in a different state. News travels almost instantaneously these days with Radio, and the Internet then it did way back in the mid-1800s. If anything I would think it would encourage other secessionist movements to finally secede too. Alaska, HI, South Carolina, and even California have secessionist movements. This really is the only peaceful way to decentralize power away from Washington and hopefully end the mass socialism and empire building.
Tracy - drinkGreen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31@Paktu
"Do you really think that the US Army would roll in with tanks?"
The U.S. government did it in 1861, except not with tanks. The states seceded, and Lincoln sent in the Army to get them to surrender, which turned into a bloody battle (Battle of Bull Run/Manassas), which in turn started the Civil War. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35@ho0ber,
Go check your history books again, just make sure they're not the history books that the government uses in their propaganda camps.
Slavery was not an issue. Lincoln offered to let the southern states keep slavery forever if they would rejoin the union.
They refused because the issues that drove them to the separation, abusive taxation, tarriffs, crushing of southern industry for the benefit of northern industrialist interests who had the politicians in their pockets, had not been resolved.
The abolitionists wanted the South to just go! Norther abolitionists were all for separation, in the hope that the economics of the situation would hit the southern states harder that way (without northern industry to prop them up, as it were) and slavery would implode.
Slavery was not an issue of the war until after Gettysburgh. Lincoln had prepared the emancipation proclamation as a wonderful working of propaganda to prevent England and France from entering on the side of the South so as to break the Northern blockade which was preventing the exporting of southern goods (first thing the south did was lower the tarriffs) to European markets.
Once Lincoln had both a military victory _and_ the abolition of slavery on his side, the "free" countries of England and France couldn't enter the war on the southern side without angering their own abolitionist constituents.
After that, it was just a matter of time and General Sherman. - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Yep, that there war of Northern Aggression will get ya'll every time.
- cyberlync, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30The civil war was about states rights more then anything else. Slavery was, at bet, a side issue and a propaganda point for the north.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27@Paktu
"What does the country gain by keeping a state from declaring independence?"
The appearance of legitimacy. Can't have the proles thinking they can choose who governs them. Sure, they allow you to vote between two-halves of the same coin, but the control is still theirs.
Also, it might foster such un-patriotic questions as, "if a state can leave the union, why can't a county, or a city, or any arbitrary collection of individuals who would wish it so. In fact, why am I subject to the whims of a few men in a far-away city by mere accident of my location of birth." No, we must not let such such dangerous questions arise. - Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24England didn't allow for their colonies to declare their independence either.
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42Let's just pretend that tomorrow, New Hampshire held a referendum and voted to secede. Do you really think that the US Army would roll in with tanks? What does the country gain by keeping a state from declaring independence?
Besides, our entire military is tied up in Iraq right now... - mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Or how bout we just separate Upstate NY from NYC... im sick of having all my taxes go to pay for that city, while where I live gets neglected...
- Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Nouveau Ampshire
- lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22As a fellow tax-paying citizen of Massachusetts, I second that notion.
But in all seriousness, i think bipartisanship is tearing this country apart. I think of myself as neither Democrat nor Republican...Liberal nor Conservative. Why do people INSIST on labeling each other as such. Why can't one have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies???
I wonder what people will call me when I post this, a damned liberal, or a ***** conservative? - tommorris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19The FSP is not a secessionist movement. The secessionists are often a subset of the FSP, but the FSP are not all secessionists. There are non-secessionist methods by which you could achieve the aims laid out on the Rep of NH site - eg. you could pass a law which forbids any representative of the federal government entering NH, or states that federal taxes do not apply to NH citizens or allows NH citizens to defend themselves against federal government agents.
- illegalchuck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Totally lame. I live in NH - there is not widespread dissatisfaction. One guy makes a web page and suddenly we are on the verge of civil war? Let's just drop the 1861 references right now please.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Though it is not mentioned specifically on that site (except in the links section), this looks like it could be an offshoot of the Free State Project.
http://www.freestateproject.org/ - BuRz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17We , separatist of Quebec, support the separatist movement of NH. Every state or province that wish to leave a Country MUST have the right to do it .
Good luck. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"The Supremacy clause has always been there, and has always meant that states could not contradict the federal government. Sure, the federal government's role has mushroomed into an unrecognizable colossus that our founding fathers would never recognize--but the principle remains the same: it is supreme. The founders knew what would happen if the central government could not enforce its rules, because they had lived with it for years under the ineffective Articles of Confederation."
The Articles of Confederation were "ineffective" by not allowing the would-be rulers the power they wanted. The tragedy of the American experiment in freedom is that the government formed by the American Revolution was overthrown by the Federalists a scant seven years after it was formed. The anti-Federalists predicted exactly what would happen if the Constitution was passed. They said it would lead to tyranny because it would never be able to chain down the growth of the federal government. I will always side with constitutionalists against the statists who have been chipping away at the constitutional "safeguards" for over two centuries, but I recognize that it is a losing battle. Liberty can only be won when masses of people realize that no government has a legitimate right to steal and kill, no matter what the Constitution authorizes. - millerm277, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Yeah, you should combine NYC with where i live (NJ)....and keep all the corruption in one state....
I swear.....NJ is the only state where someone getting busted for corruption, bribery..etc, doesn't even make the front page. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Personally I think this country could use a good civil war. Maybe NH's antics will spark that war. It's time to some fear into our elected officials.
- calhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13> You have got to be kidding me? 166 people digg this? Just more evidence that people in
> America are so unintelligent that a single one-sided article can persuade them to believe
> in an idea that is fundamentally flawed.
Digging something doesn't mean that you agree with it, it only means you find the article or the related discussion interesting. - apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'm not sure they can pronounce "New Hampshire" in French.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"As much as I like the idea of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence, I fully expect that any real effort to separate from the jurisdiction of the federal United States would be met with exactly the same response it was met by the first and last time it was tried"
Actually, what you're thinking of wasn't the first time--in addition to a few conspiracies to separate from the Union (most notably the interesting tale of Aaron Burr), the closest we've come to secession other than the Civil War was the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson. South Carolina declared it had the power to nullify laws and taxes it didn't like, which didn't sit well with the national government. Rumblings of secession grew, so Andrew Jackson laid the verbal smack down in a written proclamation and a Force Bill authorizing him to use force if necessary. Senator Clay eventually hammered out a compromise tariff and everyone lived happily ever after (until about 30 years later when the economic tensions beteween north and south that had only been postponed, not solved, along with many other factors, helped cause a Civil War)
So I'd imagine something similar would happen to New Hampshire today--if things got serious, Bush would make a big speech and get Congress to give him authority to use force if necessary, some sort of concessions would be made to NH, and the secessionists would back down. If they REALLY wanted to secede, they'd need to get half the country to go with them to even stand a chance. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It's nice to see people in this thread acually know their history. South Carolina always had problems with the feds, and the reason was simple:
South Carolina made *****-tons of money from exports, but the Feds put so much tax on it that they had to lower prices and make less money, meanwhile the poor tennant farmers and other small time farmers are starving to death while the very select few plantation owners made a decen amount of money. The whole time the Fed was spending all their money (85% of which came from the South) on infrastructure in the Northeast. There's a reason the Northeast is so more developed, and such a ***** now. It's not by chance. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Key West seceeded from the United States in the 90's in response to the US gov't blocking traffic into and out of the keys because of drug concerns. They called themselves "The Conch Republic" and had a navy of ornery sailors. Immediately after they declared independence they applied to the United States for foreign aid.
I dont think that they were ever formally recognized as seceeding by anyone, but they still talk about it down there. - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -19/+29Oh behalf of Massachusetts, take us with you! I still believe in the Canadian annex plan, proposed after the most recent presidential election. Everything north of the Mason-Dixon line would annex to Canadia, while everything south of it would become Jesusland or Christonia, your pick.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The only reason the Emanciplation Proclomation ever came about was simple: the British (and maybe French) were about to send ships and supplies to the Confederates, but since they had already outlawed slavery there, they could never justify aligning themselves with a "slave state." It was simply politics. If the Union actually cared about blacks or their rights, then why did it take until the 1960's for there to be black civil rights? Why are all the blacks herded up into urban ghettos in the northern states?
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13It is kind of strage we don't let states seceed to begin with. I can't believe we actually went to war over keeping the south as part of our country. We've been paying for that ever since. The entire south absorbs far more federal resources than it provides, and I think their populace would prefer a theoracy anyway. It holds the rest of the country back culturally and economically. I know- very un-PC. Go ahead and flame me.
I know I define myself as a west-coaster almost as much as I define myself as an American. If the west coast were a seperate country- particularly the pacific northwest, that is where I'd want to live.
zapatopi.net/cascadia/ - osuadh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Unfortunately for these secessionists, "Congress passed legislation outlawing the act of secession by any state in the Union" following the Civil war (from wikipedia). Secondly, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1869 case Texas v. White that unilateral secession by a U.S. state was unconstitutional and that it had no force in statutory law". So while this may seem like a good idea, the government has assured that they have every right to stop secession from the U.S.
- HardCorps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If all this does it get people to question government as a cause of some problems, then it is effective. So many times "liberals" and "conservatives" blame each other, but then agree that the federal government just needs more money to solve the problem. Maybe government causes the problem, or intensifies it. Everyone is in agreement that freedom is good - but there doesn't need to be a law about everything and a cop in every home to bring that about.
I fully support this succession movement and I believe many others do also. Actually read the argument instead of assuming "what if" cases. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Naive, perhaps. But which is sadder, the naivete of these individuals, or that we have lived so long with an all-encompassing government that such ideas are beyond the realm of possibility?
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It always comes down to the road's doesn't it?
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Then you have obviously never read about the town of Killington, VT wanting to secede from VT and become a part of New Hampshire.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/02/killington.secession.ap/ - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"But in all seriousness, i think bipartisanship is tearing this country apart. I think of myself as neither Democrat nor Republican...Liberal nor Conservative. Why do people INSIST on labeling each other as such. Why can't one have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies???
I wonder what people will call me when I post this, a damned liberal, or a ***** conservative?"
I agree that the hysteria about liberal versus conservative is tearing the country apart, but the tragedy is that so much of it is fear-mongering by sycophantic intellectuals. As a libertarian, I can tell you that there is virtually no difference between statist Democrats and statist Republicans. The statists incite hatred over insignificant differences that would all be solved by allowing Americans to actually have the liberty for which the founders of America fought.
Many people who say they have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies actually believe in libertarian principles but have never been exposed to libertarianism as a political philosophy. You might want to take this little quiz to see where your beliefs really fall. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html - hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13FYI, a very interesting podcast that talks about freedom issues and is close to the free state project is http://www.freetalklive.com/
Very entertaining if your into that sort of thing. - cjhowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'd like to see New Mexico secede. Become the third largest nuclear power overnight. Lets see the tanks stop that :)
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The fundamental problem with this platform is that THEY HAVE BEEN INVITING SECESSIONISTS TO MOVE TO NH.
There is a HUGE difference between NH residents deciding to seceed, and a secessionist movement artificially relocating their members to NH and THEN seceeding. Thats not secession, thats kidnapping a state. I was born and raised in NH and although I hate Bush I am more than happy to be an American thanks. - Hiltonizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm from new hampshire, and I sure as hell am on board.
People are evacuating Massachusetts by the thousands to live in New Hampshire. If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were still alive today, they would agree fully with the movement. The US is infringing on the rights it was created to protect.
Whoever said if 1 state does it, others will follow, is absolutely right. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9People may laugh at this but, knowing how dire the federal government's debt situation is, I see this as rational. Medicare will begin to require significant tax increases in 20-30 years from now. At some point, certain states will get tired of being taxes out of everything and leave the union, relieving them of their tax burden. So this seems to me t obe a canary in the coal mine. The problem isn't bad now but it will get very bad soon.
- karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Powerful local churches become scary when the congregation takes their relationship with Christ and tries to embed it in law. They become insular clubs where, if you're in you can do no wrong, and if you're out you can't do anything right. City councils become a rubber stamp for what the pastor/deacons decide. Local businesses are forced to join the club or be run out of town. Crime and other intractible problems get ignored, or the official government solution is to pray for the victims. Schools become madrahses where children are indoctrinated into the club, and kids who ask questions and/or don't conform are expelled (along with their parents).
That's scary. - isemism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wheres good ol Andy Jackson when we need him?
(j/k- I know he was a bigoted *****, but he did keep the Union together through out the 1820s - and as far as I know, hes the only president to ever pull a gun on someone while in office) - GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Mecole21,
You may want to a look at the NY state budget. First off NYC has a city tax that covers quite a bit of the funds needed for NYC. Then the largest amount of NY state income tax comes from the NYC metro area. The amount of money that NYC generates for the state of NY is greatly out of proportion with the amount that the state returns to NYC in discretionary funds.
If the national security scare hadn't made it roughly 1 million bucks a day for security in NYC and if the Dept. of Homeland Security could actually budget their resources and do so in a way that actually matches potential target with money that reflects the likelihood of an attack, then maybe NYC wouldn't need as much money.
As it stands, NYC produces more in income taxes for NY state than it receives back in proportion. And for your information, the NY city council has had a motion to secede from NY tabled for quite a while now. It's the state that has kept it from actually moving forward on it.
The more you know... - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@uttles
It was also because many southern states (I don't want to say all because I'm not sure of it) offered slaves their independence if they fought for the confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent a large army of confederate slaves from fighting their liberators. Also it was a real rallying cry and uniting factor for the Union. It led to Maryland liberating it's slaves. - dreepa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8One point that should be made:
If the people of NH (not others) want to secede it is in their Constitution (which predates the US Constitution.
http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html
Check out Article 10. - Devious1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If a state were to do such a thing, I'd move there. The PATRIOT Act, and War on Drugs are reason enough, less tax would be great, but not very realistic.
- Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Even a successful secession by Rhode Island would send an powerful signal to the rest of the country about the viability of autonomy.
The country has gotten bigger, by a factor of some 160 times bigger, population wise. The government designed by Jefferson for Jefferson's time cannot continue to hold up under Bush in Bush's time. The checks and balances system has long since been exploited and bypassed and thereby giving the federal government as much license to do whatever it wants to do.
Maybe it doesn't have that many adherents at the present, but I am sure that as time goes on and Bush uses his second term warfare on the rest of the Middle East it will become ever the more lucrative a position to hold. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You might want to read up a bit more on what "backs" our currency. Hint: it isn't gold or silver.
In any case, they have it covered:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/HB1342.html - ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hope this gains momentum and I hope Maine goes with it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'll move there!
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"The FSP is not a secessionist movement. The secessionists are often a subset of the FSP, but the FSP are not all secessionists. There are non-secessionist methods by which you could achieve the aims laid out on the Rep of NH site - eg. you could pass a law which forbids any representative of the federal government entering NH, or states that federal taxes do not apply to NH citizens or allows NH citizens to defend themselves against federal government agents."
Article VI of the United States Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Also see McCullouch v. Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland):
"Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to control national economic policy, which a bank can be considered part of. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed." -
Show 51 - 100 of 240 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is