Staredit Network

Oh, so Vermont might have the "highest percentage" of people that want to secede because they only have 600,000 people. Think about it though - 1,262 votes is still nowhere close enough to even consider breaking away. At the rate they're going at, they're going to need like 500 years to collect enough signatures to send it to legislation, and then it will get shot down. Why must you always overplay these things and then call me stupid whenever I point out what common sense would say?

Alaska never belonged to Canada...

It was a Russian colony.

What's with this "the South wanted to secede peacefully and those evil, evil northerners forced them to attack" bull? I'm not well versed i the history of America, but apparently neither are you.

Apparently you also love slavery.

Get your Springfield Civil War Muskets Now!!!!
1/2 off at your local armory, BUY NOW!!!!
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ben and Jerrys

Don't they also make good maple syrup?

Why would Vermont detach itself from the US? (too lazy to read anything else..might as well participate)

How would Canada make us a ultrapower? Canada sux.


Ben and Jerrys is overrated.


That's why we have Canada.

California's population, according to the U.S. census bureau, is about 36 million. New York's is about 19 million.

Yes but gays dont count. Forcing California's population down to 5.

-Le0n

Ney York + California = SUper State! In a way...

Well Monaco gets by just fine so... I'll leave it at that.

The beginning of the civil war was quite peaceful. The southerners had a way of living and simply wished to continue there way of living, the north wanted the country to stay together. In many respects the north was the one who instigated a war. If you have learned anything about president Andrew Jackson it was that he was rather a tough hot head who was not able to really cope with people breaking apart to form their own country. The tariff of abominations, which is one of the sparks that ignited the civil war was one such instance of Andrew Jackson threatening to send troops into the state to enforce a law making products more expensive.

Simply because the north won the war, the text books write about how the north was in the right. If the south had won, we could have seen about all the faults of the north side.

Rofl, I signed the Petition. I'm Douche Bag.

Lol rly...? Anyway Vermont would never secede. Even if 50% of people in vermont voted for it, it would just be shot down by the government.


Moral = If you want to secede, move to Egypt.

Thats the point. The government has no say in the states right to seceed. Otherwise they wouldn't try in the first place.

I guess the only state that has the "Get out of Jail free card" and could actually succede from the Union would be Texas. I belive there is something in it's constitution that says they can succede or something like that, as they were their own country at one point.

Even if Vermony does succede, then we could just tax them into oblivion and they would join back. Or declare war xD

what if all 50 states seceded from the union could they stop that? 50 new countries!

No yeow, Vermont too has the "get out of jail free" card. When their republic joined in 1791, they signed a "federal-state contract". Which states that they are apart of a group. They can secede at anytime their populance feels necessary. (SP?)

Ha ha! About a third of those signatures are from other states than Vermont anyway.

roflmaples. that means some people don't like vermont and would love to see vermont secede?

And apparently people who think that the Civil War was only fought over slavery are the same people who feel that President Clinton had anything to do with the economy boom during the '90s. They focus on one thing, and not on the other 99 items that lead up to the war. Such as President Lincoln promising to create an amendment securing the operation of slavery for as long as the south would need it.



~~Source

The main issues of the Civil War were trade tariffs (forcing the South to pay 3 and/or 4 times as much for items from Europe only so the American versions would be cheaper). The Civil War almost started 30 years earlier, but was averted by a swift-thinking congress.



Slavery only became an issue during the 'panics' of 1837 and 1857, both of which devastated Northern industrial centers, but left the Southern agricultural economy practically untouched. See, those who were against slavery tried to use this against the plantation owners, and is what caused it to even become something to discuss. Until then, slavery had been viewed similar as to how the nation (as a whole, not necessarily what you or I think, but generally speaking) views abortion: as a necessary evil. Slavery, for the continual survival of the agricultural trade, and abortion to help stem unwanted pregnancies. Both sides of both conflicts had good reason for wanting, or not wanting, these practices, and both sides often used 'class' as a weapon against the other.



And, in case you are still thinking that the South 'loved' slavery:



~~Source for last 3 quotes

Now, I'm not for slavery. Not at all. It needed to go, and was in a steady decline before and during the war -- but the fact remains that slavery was only one, and if you look at the congressional transcripts leading up to the war it was a minor, reason that South Carolina gave the Federal Government the middle finger, and other states joined us not long after.

A few more 'fun facts' about the leaders of the Civil War.

General Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson both freed their slaves six months before the War began.

It was legal to have slaves within the city limits of Washington DC, and General Grant kept his until the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was passed, forcing him to free them.

Stonewall Jackson broke a law and almost was arrested multiple times for teaching freed blacks to read and write.

Those facts do not mean anything in and of themselves -- but your actions speak louder than your words.

As for Vermont seceeding, I don't buy it. Talk doesn't mean anything, and I don't believe they have the spine or guts to actually do it. I can see Texas pulling it off. We in South Carolina have a history of doing so (lol), but I feel at the moment we would not do so again unless we were assured that other states would follow to back us up. Again, this is where Texas would come in, and probably Louisiana and Alabama. The four of us have always been allies on most issues.

Do I see it happening soon? No, I don't. But if history has taught us anything, it is that it repeats. And our current national situation is very, very similar to the climate during the early 1850s.

EDIT: I corrected a few mis-placed words and grammer corrections post-type.

Whether or not they will or not, was not what I was going for. I found a story and I posted it. Doesn't mean I believe it in its entirety. I posted it to see your views on the legalities of seccession.

Thank you Veeger for that long, but rather informative post. Those are my exact thoughts on the subject of the civil war and on people that do focus on one thing. You have to focus on at least most of the things someone/thing has done.

Sorry, but that's bs. Abolitionists had been stirring up trouble for many years. Another major factor was that California went free, not slave, and the South was worried that abolitionists would control Congress.

Don't tell me that slavery wasn't the main issue. It was.