We can’t know what truly motivated Lincoln. It seems this was more likely designed to cause a slave rebellion. The British had freed American slaves during the War of Colonial Insurrection. This is an old tactic.
Why would it be disastrous? The United States has no major enemies on its continent or even South America. So there is no need for a state to have a big defense. And if a seceded state did face attack I’m sure the remaining US would be more than happy to lend a hand since we get involved in all sorts of fights that are not ours to defend freedom and democracy.
IF ??? We’re way beyond if!
Everybody brings up abortion as a reason why secession would be a good thing.
Duh! But Jesus was not talking about politics. The phrase was not designed for politics. Whether it applies or not to a country is something that was never shown. It was given, in a typical Lincoln move, as a fiat, an axiom, something that was true because he said it. ’
No, we did not. “Unitied” is the adjective. “State” is the noun. Your emphasis ingnores both your history and your grammer. The States that came together where never supposed to surrender statehood as they have done, been forced to do. Like I said, you are right, but only because might makes right in the political arena. Lincoln had enough men to slaughter, so he became right. I am not going to say what he did was wrong, but it was costly. It is only my opinion that it does not fit the criteria for a just war.
It is a legitimate concern you have, and one of the arguments against the revocation of Roe v. Wade. I do not believe it flies morally because the inacting of an immoral law can never be justified by the negative results of those who violate that law. An example would be child rape. If Utah allowed for sex with underage children, it would result in some going there for that purpose. The idea that we should not limit abortion anywhere then would be analogous to make child rape legal everywhere because those that are going to do it will do it anyway.
I am not saying that abortion should not be limited locally because some will leave their states to do it; I am saying that because this will happen, abortion would not justify such a grave course of action as state secession.
The new nation would be smaller but why poorer? How would they lose money simply by seceding?
What justifies secession? I would think secession needs no justification beyond the will of the people seceding. Why is secession grave? Unless a country’s boundaries are forever ordained as they are by God then there is nothing inherently grave about changing the form of government.
For one thing, unless a country said that no liberals can enter the country, people who are pro choice could move to these new countries because of the better economic activities. Also, just because they’d outlaw it now doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be overturned, and I’m sure there are even conservatives who would say that abortion laws shouldn’t be too strict.
Check how much each state pays in Federal taxes etc. Check how much that state gets back from the Federal government in subsidies, salaries, grants etc. Some states get more back than they pay in. Those states would be poorer.
The federal budget is not magic money (well actually it is but that is another topic). Each state pays for a portion of the services the federal government provides. Most states have additional laws and inspection agencies for all the same things the federal government does. If my state were to lose the TSA I’d be happy. If my state lost the FDA I’d be happy. If my state had to provide its own defense we’d be fine since gun ownership is very prevalent and we have some of the country’s largest military bases.
Of course we do not know the future. But we do know the southern states have tried to outlaw abortion but can’t because of the federal government. It seems very reasonable to think they would outlaw it as soon as the federal government is no longer an inhibiting factor. This is speculation, but it is much more reasonable speculation than what might happen ten or twenty years from now.
Yes, some states do get more. And from what I recall they say the southern states take more in than they give. I’d be interested to know how this is calculated. But we all know the federal government is hugely inefficient and wasteful and that a lot of functions are duplicated at the state level. I think this is not a major concern for many states. Subsidies are just economic inefficiencies. The less of them we have the better economy we will have.
Yes, but they get their dignity back, knowing that weren’t robbing others to feather their own nests.
No. You have some of the United States’ largest military bases. The US Government would be likely to move them out of any new independent state back into the smaller USA. Could your new state afford the taxes to keep an army that size equipped?
Sometimes you do what you have to do but If a state leaves its their choice. People are tired of their oppressive government and having un-Christian laws passed and shoved down our throats
Would your new state allow married people to divorce? Is that Christian or un-Christian? Would your new state use the death penalty relatively frequently, rarely or not have the death penalty at all? Which choices are un-Christian? Would your new state allow foreign spouses to immigrate? What is the Christian family policy?
So we are not suppose to do anything just let it happen?
These petitions are gestures of defiance. But Our Fearless Leader should take note that many Americans intend to resist his policies.
