I’d like to see ‘em fuckin’ try it.
Apt user name, I will say that.
“The thought of what America,
The thought of what America,
The thought of what America would be like
If American History had a wide circulation
Oh well!
It troubles my sleep.”
CMC fnord!
I think the big difference is a combination of popularity and success. The popularity of the movement gives it legitimacy.
In 1836, a majority of Texans wanted to secede from Mexico, therefore making them rebels and now, 183 years after their success, we venerate their leaders- Travis, Houston, Bowie, Milam, Seguin, etc… Similarly, we don’t venerate Oran Roberts (president of the Texas secession commission in 1861) at all, save the god-forsaken panhandle county named for him in 1876.
But those nuts who want to secede today? Kooks and nuts, all of them. They’re not at all reflective of any kind of popular desire to secede.
This implies that people in California and Texas who want to secede are experiencing human rights violations. Who are these people and what rights are being violated?
Playing Devil’s advocate :
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
That’s just feel-good, ultimately meaningless bullshit, you could say that about any proposed law nixed in Congress or by SCOTUS. “They’re not doing the laws I want !”, basically.
** He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.**
Same deal, but incorporate Presidential veto in there somewhere. It’s still a case of disagreeing over legislation, and the established government nixing legislation wished for by an angry minority.
** He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.**
Yeah, but “those people” disregarded other Laws (e.g. customs, taxes on tea and royal monopolies) anyway, so. I don’t think Texas could claim that they’re not being represented AT ALL, but anyone could claim they’re not represented right, especially with the Electoral College being the bullshit it is.
** He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.**
Gotta send people to Washington DeeCee when Congress coulda been held in Houston.
** He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.**
Mostly contextual, and propaganda anyway. Also you can’t have it both ways and on one hand claim you’re not being Represented while at the same time claiming the ruler is dissolving the House because you’re being *too *represented.
**He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
**I have no earthly idea what this means. Claiming anarchy because the executive hasn’t appointed people it should have ? Well, the Trump admin is certainly guilty of that one.
**
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
**“He’s fucked with immigration policy when immigration would profit us”. That’s a Trump admin check, recheck, underlined check, doublecheck.
** He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.**
Hey, Mitch, remember that Garland guy ?
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Hey, Mitch, remember that Kavanaugh guy ?
** He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. **
More or less meaningless, just a general objection to “big government”. Paste Rick Perry being stupid about the EPA here.
** He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. **
Used to be a Big Deal, now everybody does it. Irrelevant.
** He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. **
Bullshit then, but I suppose Texas could try and make this one work with the whole militaro-industrial and lobbying angle ?
** He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:**
States’ rights ! States’ rights !
** For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: **
Again, irrelevant issue today.
** For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:**
Black lives matter ! Racist justice system !
** For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
**Trump tariffs.
** For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
**Trump tariffs, again.
** For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: **
OK, can’t think of a modern equivalent to this’un. But then again it was mostly bullshit back then - some Americans were acting like pirates and smugglers and got treated as such. Irish pirates didn’t fare any better.
** For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:**
The offenses weren’t pretended. As for today, “for spying on us without warrant”.
**For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies : **
Oh come on, Canada wasn’t a conspiracy, you lunatics ! You kicked the French out !
** For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:**
States’ rights ! States’ rights ! Activist judges !
** For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.**
See above.
** He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. **
Propaganda, easily reproducible by shooting at federal agents then claiming self-defence over the reaction.
** He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
**Refusal from Washington of acting upon climate change, or imposing strict regulations on the fuckers who oiled the Gulf.
**He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. **
That’s a bit much, innit ? Just substitute some random rant by a Texas radio pundit.
** He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.**
Non-issue today, though one could conceivably segue into that to conscription, which is still on the books.
**He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. **
Could go both ways, either decrying stringent border enforcement Texas doesn’t care for ; or lax border enforcement wot’s a conspiracy with them brown’uns. But really, I mean, c’mon, the British didn’t fucking conspire to help Native Americans take back the colonies, that’s absurd nonsense.
**In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
**Most humble, sure. And meaningless a claim from a judicial POV. Can be repeated as is without consequence. Calling Trump a tyrant/a fascist isn’t even that far fetched.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
That’s just saying “we warned you guys we were going to do it !”. How long have Texas secessionists been agitating, again ?
California and Texas residents have taxation WITH representation.
You can agree or disagree with the Declaration of Independence as you want, but the point is, there were reasons for revolution in 1776, and those were not the same as the reasons for secession in 1860, which would not be the same reasons for rebellion in 2039. If you want to know why the colonies left Great Britain, read the Declaration of Independence. If you want to know why the South tried to leave the US, read the Cornerstone Speech. If you want to know why someone could support one but not the other, read both documents and compare and contrast.
Surely most have seen the South park episode which correctly depicts that not all of the colonies were in favor of war vs. independence via peaceful means? A similar but not similar analogy to the Boston tea party would be radicals invading port of Long Beach and dumping containers of rifles into the ocean?
Knock it off. Name calling belongs in the Pit.
[/moderating]
It can’t be very well argued. This is how democracy works; you have elections and vote for your government - and sometimes you get outvoted. But losing an election is not the same thing as never having elections. Most people understand this.
As others have noted, the big difference is time.
In 1776, many of the founding fathers were seen as traitors, and not just by the British: perhaps as many as a third of the residents of the colonies were loyal to Britain, a third advocated leaving, and the rest mostly didn’t have strong opinions. (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, 19 March 1812: “1774 was the most important and the most difficult Year of all. We were about one third Tories, one third timid and one third true Blue.”)
After more than two centuries of every schoolchild being taught that those who wanted out in 1776 were heroes, yes, they are seen as heroes. That wasn’t always the case, and would not have been the case had 1776 not succeeded.
If those in CA or TX who want out in 2019 garner enough popular support and do succeed, then schoolchildren in those new nations will be taught that the secessionists were heroes, and in a few decades or centuries, that opinion will be near universal in the respective domains.
I disagree. As many people have said here, there was a key difference that was seen in 1776. The people in 1776 were saying that they wanted a representative government and they didn’t have one. That wasn’t a position that had to develop over time.
“There can be no excuse, no justification for treason!”
“Unless you win.”
Well…no one would be a stretch. And that’s just one way human rights were routinely violated in the Colonies…
The OP question does not quite make sense. In 1776, the colonists were indeed considered traitors by the British Empire. And if Texas or California tried to secede today in 2019, they would also be considered traitors by the remaining forty-nine states. Only in Texas or California would they not be considered traitors. The OP is asking about the attitude in the mother nation vs. the seceding entity.
The gotcha is in posting it as a query, when in fact you have a strong, entrenched position and will be dropping misguided counter arguments bit by bit.
Why wouldn’t the other 49 be able to say ‘hey we understand how you feel! we needed to do this once before long ago, so we understand why CA wants it now, and are ok with the split and will not want war or call you a traitor, we will let you leave peacefully and on good terms’?
It was pretty clear from the OP my personal position- I find them similar and find one being ok and one being wrong to be contradictory, and was wondering why those who felt that way, did so. And the rest is Debate 101 I thought, which is why I posted it here and not in general questions- to state your side, hear the opposing side, and counter their comments with yours, etc?