Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

The number of 60 million unnecessary deaths in the cold war comes from former CIA Task Force Chief John Stockwell.

The number includes the murders of people indentified as communists or others opposed to US sponsored governments in civil conflicts which would not have occured if it were not for US covert action.

In Vietnam, for example, US overt warmaking such as bombing of villages and cities in the south and north was only one source of killing. US covert action in having installed and supported the Diem regime from 1952 till the US killed him in 1963 killed countless people and destroyed thousands of villages before the US entered the conflict with military means.

In Indonesia the US tried since 1957 to stage coups to oust Sukarno, who was only neutralist and not pro-communist. They didn't succeed until 1965, and thereafter the Indonesian military killed well over one million landless peasants who were believed to be "sympathetic" to the PKI, the local communist party.

This kind of thing directed against local and non-aligned and neutralist forces and groups is what made up the casualty numbers.

It was all pointless because non of these communist parties were devoted to Moscow or Peking.

Each and every one of these parties was independent, and sought independent relations with the Chinese and Russians just as Tito had in Yougoslavia.

But the US and CIA was sooooooo stupid that they made no distinctions, and this was the case because within CIA the leadership was a bunch of right-wing imperialist nutballs who thought anything short of total free market capitalism should be conflated with Stalinism.

It was the far right wing ideology of the CIA leaders, all of whom came from Wall Street and the banking community, who brought this genocide about.

The number of 60 million unnecessary deaths in the cold war comes from former CIA Task Force Chief John Stockwell.

The number includes the murders of people indentified as communists or others opposed to US sponsored governments in civil conflicts which would not have occured if it were not for US covert action.

In Vietnam, for example, US overt warmaking such as bombing of villages and cities in the south and north was only one source of killing. US covert action in having installed and supported the Diem regime from 1952 till the US killed him in 1963 killed countless people and destroyed thousands of villages before the US entered the conflict with military means.

In Indonesia the US tried since 1957 to stage coups to oust Sukarno, who was only neutralist and not pro-communist. They didn't succeed until 1965, and thereafter the Indonesian military killed well over one million landless peasants who were believed to be "sympathetic" to the PKI, the local communist party.

This kind of thing directed against local and non-aligned and neutralist forces and groups is what made up the casualty numbers. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Ho Chi Minh killed tens of thousands after the U.S. left Vietnam. TAE, are you a fascist spouting communism or a communist spouting fascism. Either Hitler or Stalin would be very disappointed with you.

An FYI, many "extra-legal" things occured during the Lincoln administration: West Virginia was but one of those "things". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Supreme Court found everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, but you won't find that little fact in the new movie, "LIncoln," or in any of the idol worshipping histories of that murdering tyrant.

Lincoln was a blood thirty tyrant who only cared about the disgrace to himself and his legacy if the country would have remained broken up because of his election.

That's the only reason he prosecuted the war, and did so with no limits or humanity.

Nor did he give a shit about the blacks or slavery either.

He actually advocated for their removal back to Africa!!!!!!!!

He only fought for the 13th amendment and ended slavery to weaken the south and apply a firmer grip to them after the war was over by making the freed slaves beholden to his party.

He was the devil.

The reality is that it will never happen, unfortunately.
Texas is probably the only state that could stand alone without the assistance of the other states, I mean the largess of the federal government.
The problem would be keeping the rest of them out and from coming here and fucking shit up like they have done in the rest of the nation. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Too late it's already happening, a little more every day.

99% of the people of the South who fought and supported independence didn't own slaves, and were actually economically harmed by slavery. Slavery was an economic harm to free laborers everywhere it existed. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The whites who fought with the South might not have owned slaves, but they supported the institution nonetheless. Economics does NOT determine everything. We have found out the hard way that cultural issues can trump economic ones, because human beings are often stupid and obstinate. Sharia law and the general oppression of women has surely caused great economic damage to nearly every Islamic county in the world. And yet the majority of men in those countries support it anyway because they cannot conceive of a world where they cannot control their women.

Southern whites were horrified by the thought that the blacks that had deemed inferior for so long would be able to vote like them and put blacks into office. They were horrified by the thought of sharing hotels and restaurants with them. Afraid of intermarriage and seeing them in the public square, not showing deference to whites.

So, many southern whites supported slavery even though they didn't own a slave. It kept "those people" in their place.

Self-determination is the only principle that applies here. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Says who? You? You don't get to define what principles apply here.

Here are some other principles: freedom from slavery, equality before the law, one man, one vote (not 3/5ths of a man with no vote).

You can try to spin all kinds of arguments to seek to justify imperialism and taking others' self-determination by force and terror, but it's all simply TYRANNY. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

You've got it backwards. Holding human beings as slaves is tyranny.

Ending slavery is NOT imperialism and is NOT tyranny.

Like many southerners, you spin the history of the Civil War and speak about it in abstractions to avoid acknowledging the horrors committed by your ancestors. Not unlike some Nazi sympathizers.

Look, I do not blame YOU personally or any living person for slavery. You had no control over it and therefore you cannot be blamed for it. So stop trying to fight a rear guard action to defend the honor of the Confederacy because you have guilty feeling about being descended from the people who were responsible for slavery and the Civll War.

An FYI, many "extra-legal" things occurred during the Lincoln administration: West Virginia was but one of those "things". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why is it "extra-legal"? West Virginian's voted on it, didn't they? Just like Confederate states voted to leave the Union, right? So, that must make it OK, right?

And West Virginia was one of the border states that allowed slavery but stayed in the Union nonetheless.

And so, I return to my original premise. If it was wrong for the US to stop the Southern states from leaving, would it also be wrong if the stated of Texas tried to stop regions in Texas from seceding?

Is there some reason or principle why the territory of a state must be treated as indivisible, but the United States?

Can just ONE of you answer that?

The civil war was mainly about establishing a strong
central government and limiting the rights of states
to govern themselves, those into revisionist history
have tried to make slavery the main cause, freeing
of the slaves was just an after thought.

The number of 60 million unnecessary deaths in the cold war comes from former CIA Task Force Chief John Stockwell.

The number includes the murders of people indentified as communists or others opposed to US sponsored governments in civil conflicts which would not have occured if it were not for US covert action.

In Vietnam, for example, US overt warmaking such as bombing of villages and cities in the south and north was only one source of killing. US covert action in having installed and supported the Diem regime from 1952 till the US killed him in 1963 killed countless people and destroyed thousands of villages before the US entered the conflict with military means.

In Indonesia the US tried since 1957 to stage coups to oust Sukarno, who was only neutralist and not pro-communist. They didn't succeed until 1965, and thereafter the Indonesian military killed well over one million landless peasants who were believed to be "sympathetic" to the PKI, the local communist party.

This kind of thing directed against local and non-aligned and neutralist forces and groups is what made up the casualty numbers.

It was all pointless because non of these communist parties were devoted to Moscow or Peking.

Each and every one of these parties was independent, and sought independent relations with the Chinese and Russians just as Tito had in Yougoslavia.

But the US and CIA was sooooooo stupid that they made no distinctions, and this was the case because within CIA the leadership was a bunch of right-wing imperialist nutballs who thought anything short of total free market capitalism should be conflated with Stalinism.

It was the far right wing ideology of the CIA leaders, all of whom came from Wall Street and the banking community, who brought this genocide about. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I cannot even begin to respond to this mindless bullshit.

The 60 million number is unadulterated crap. Cite a reputable source.

I have no problem believing 60 million people died at the hands of communists from 1918 through the fall of the iron Curtain, mostly through internal pogroms in China and the Soviet Union.

But the US is not responsible for the deaths of every single person in Southeast Asia and South America in the civil wars that occurred in the second half of the 20th century. We might have chosen a side in those wars, but so did the Soviet Union which sought to export communism around the world. It takes two to tango, so the communists get the blame, too.

And the number of dead attributable to guerrilla wars, and civil wars does not add up to anywhere near 60 million dead. That is more than died in WW1 and WW2 combined.

Stop citing Lyndon LaRouche websites.

Do all the hookers that join your agency also have to join your cult?

The whites who fought with the South might not have owned slaves, but they supported the institution nonetheless. Economics does NOT determine everything. We have found out the hard way that cultural issues can trump economic ones, because human beings are often stupid and obstinate. Sharia law and the general oppression of women has surely caused great economic damage to nearly every Islamic county in the world. And yet the majority of men in those countries support it anyway because they cannot conceive of a world where they cannot control their women.

Southern whites were horrified by the thought that the blacks that had deemed inferior for so long would be able to vote like them and put blacks into office. They were horrified by the thought of sharing hotels and restaurants with them. Afraid of intermarriage and seeing them in the public square, not showing deference to whites.

So, many southern whites supported slavery even though they didn't own a slave. It kept "those people" in their place.


Says who? You? You don't get to define what principles apply here.

Here are some other principles: freedom from slavery, equality before the law, one man, one vote (not 3/5ths of a man with no vote).


You've got it backwards. Holding human beings as slaves is tyranny.

Ending slavery is NOT imperialism and is NOT tyranny.

Like many southerners, you spin the history of the Civil War and speak about it in abstractions to avoid acknowledging the horrors committed by your ancestors. Not unlike some Nazi sympathizers.

Look, I do not blame YOU personally or any living person for slavery. You had no control over it and therefore you cannot be blamed for it. So stop trying to fight a rear guard action to defend the honor of the Confederacy because you have guilty feeling about being descended from the people who were responsible for slavery and the Civll War. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm not a civil war revisionist. It was fought about slavery, nothing else, and those who advance other arguments are mixed up. But, I understand why.

There weren't too many slaveowners who walked across that field at Gettysburg into the storm of Union fire from Cemetary Ridge in July 1863 and took 10,000 casualties in 15 minutes. They were fighting for something else which, unfortunately, included the right to enslave other human beings. I just can't bring myself to impugn their honor, and their courage. They were mixed up, and caught up in something much bigger themselves, but saying they didn't have honor is just something I completely disagree with.

The civil war was mainly about establishing a strong central government and limiting the rights of states to govern themselves, those into revisionist history have tried to make slavery the main cause, freeing of the slaves was just an after thought. Originally Posted by bojulay

Stopping slavery may or may not have been the main driving force behind the Union, but maintaining slavery was the ONLY thought the Confederacy had.

Any other abstract reason about states rights is revisionist history. There wasn't a single southerner who went to war to ensure that the federal government could not encroach on state power regarding zoning restrictions, property taxes, divorce laws and child custody.

The only state right they fought for was the "right" to hold slaves.

Why is it "extra-legal"? West Virginian's voted on it, didn't they? Just like Confederate states voted to leave the Union, right? So, that must make it OK, right?

And West Virginia was one of the border states that allowed slavery but stayed in the Union nonetheless.

And so, I return to my original premise. If it was wrong for the US to stop the Southern states from leaving, would it also be wrong if the stated of Texas tried to stop regions in Texas from seceding?

Is there some reason or principle why the territory of a state must be treated as indivisible, but the United States?

Can just ONE of you answer that? Originally Posted by ExNYer

The Wheeling Conventions, and the delegates themselves, were never actually elected by public ballot to act on behalf of western Virginia. . . . The Wheeling Convention, which had taken a recess until August 6, reassembled on August 20, and called for a popular vote on the formation of a new state and for a convention to frame a constitution if the vote should be favorable. At the October 24, 1861 election, 18,408 votes were cast for the new state and only 781 against. The honesty of these election results has been questioned, since the Union army then occupied the area and Union troops were stationed at many of the polls to prevent Confederate sympathizers from voting. Most of the affirmative votes came from 16 counties around the Northern panhandle. . . In Ohio County, home to Wheeling, only about one-quarter of the registered voters cast votes. At the Constitutional Convention in November 1861, Mr. Lamb of Ohio County and Mr. Carskadon said that in Hampshire County, out of 195 votes only 39 were cast by citizens of the state; the rest were cast illegally by Union soldiers. In most of what would become West Virginia, there was no vote at all as two-thirds of the territory of West Virginia had voted for secession and county officers were still loyal to Richmond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vi..._from_Virginia

The Supreme Court found everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, but you won't find that little fact in the new movie, "LIncoln," or in any of the idol worshipping histories of that murdering tyrant.

Lincoln was a blood thirty tyrant who only cared about the disgrace to himself and his legacy if the country would have remained broken up because of his election.

That's the only reason he prosecuted the war, and did so with no limits or humanity.

Nor did he give a shit about the blacks or slavery either.

He actually advocated for their removal back to Africa!!!!!!!!

He only fought for the 13th amendment and ended slavery to weaken the south and apply a firmer grip to them after the war was over by making the freed slaves beholden to his party.

He was the devil. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

And the South shall rise again! Yep, Lincoln was the devil.

Finally, the true tobacco juice spittin' segregationist emerges from his hole into the sunshine.

I'm glad the pretense is over.

The Wheeling Conventions, and the delegates themselves, were never actually elected by public ballot to act on behalf of western Virginia. . . . The Wheeling Convention, which had taken a recess until August 6, reassembled on August 20, and called for a popular vote on the formation of a new state and for a convention to frame a constitution if the vote should be favorable. At the October 24, 1861 election, 18,408 votes were cast for the new state and only 781 against. The honesty of these election results has been questioned, since the Union army then occupied the area and Union troops were stationed at many of the polls to prevent Confederate sympathizers from voting. Most of the affirmative votes came from 16 counties around the Northern panhandle. Over 50,000 votes had been cast on the Ordinance of Secession, yet the vote on statehood gathered little more than 19,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vi..._from_Virginia Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And you STILL haven't answered my question about regions of Texas seceding from Texas.

And you have ignored the part about Nevada breaking off from the Utah Territory.

Well, how about that. I have one simple phrase that should put all of this talk to rest in a hurry.

President Rick Perry!


When you stop laughing just say thanks.

Stopping slavery may or may not have been the main driving force behind the Union, but maintaining slavery was the ONLY thought the Confederacy had.

Any other abstract reason about states rights is revisionist history. There wasn't a single southerner who went to war to ensure that the federal government could not encroach on state power regarding zoning restrictions, property taxes, divorce laws and child custody.

The only state right they fought for was the "right" to hold slaves. Originally Posted by ExNYer

NYer, you're wrong. I totally agree with your premise that slavery was the reason for the war, anything else is bullshit. But, I totally disagree that the soldiers who fought the war were fighting for slavery. They may have been wrong, but they were fighting for the idea of states' rights and that Washington DC could dictate those rights.