http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/us/fed-up-on-the-prairie-and-voting-on-seceding-from-colorado.html?hp&_r=2&
QuoteFed Up on the Prairie, and Voting on Seceding From Colorado
CHEYENNE WELLS, Colo. — The Old West has decided it is fed up with the New West.
At Nan's convenience store here in eastern Colorado, where the front door tells visitors that "Gun Control Is Hitting Your Target," the farmers, crop sprayers, mechanics and retirees who gather for morning coffee say they have had enough of the state and its Democratic leaders. They bristle at gun control laws and marijuana shops, green energy policies and steps to embrace gay marriage and illegal immigrants.
"I would've never believed the state of Colorado would become this liberal," said Lyle Miller, who owns the convenience store. "I'm afraid for my grandchildren. I want them to have the same heritage I had."
So in November, this rural county and 10 others will hold a quixotic vote on whether to secede from Colorado and work to form their own state, one that would cherish the farm towns and conservative ideals that people here say have been lost in Denver's glassy downtown lofts or Aspen's million-dollar ski condos. It would be called New Colorado, or maybe North Colorado — a prairie bulwark against the demographic changes and urbanization that are reshaping politics and life across this and other Western states.
"People think this is a radical idea," said Jeffrey Hare, a leader of the 51st State Initiative, which supports secession. "It's really not. What we're attempting to do is restore liberty."
Many residents and politicians, even those frustrated with the direction of Colorado's politics, have criticized the secession movement. What would happen to state highways? State parks? Water and irrigation rights? Is it even possible to build a new state government from scratch?
The push for a 51st state faces almost insurmountable hurdles. Even if counties from Cheyenne to Elbert to Sedgwick do decide to shear away from Colorado, the state must then vote to allow them to leave. After that, Congress would have to agree to admit a new state — something it has not done for a breakaway since West Virginia, in 1863.
Some residents say the idea just sounds absurd.
"It's supposed to be United States, not split-up states," said George Kemp, who runs a well-water business here.
Supporters say they also favor annexation into Wyoming, or a plan to give each county one state senator, which would give overwhelming political weight to sparsely populated, rural areas. Beyond the logistics, they say, the urge to break free and scratch out a more perfect union runs as deep as an aquifer in American life, and has often been more complex than a breach between liberals and conservatives.
The early 1900s brought a vision for the state of Texlahoma, according to Michael J. Trinklein, who wrote "Lost States," a book about statehood proposals. In 1939, pieces of South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming pushed to become Absaroka. Today, discontented residents in western Maryland, Michigan's Upper Peninsula and the mountains of southern Oregon and Northern California are agitating for their own states. And in Illinois, two rural lawmakers have floated the idea of giving the boot to Chicago.
Much of this frustration stems from complaints that rural areas, whether in Keweenaw, Mich., or Yuma, Colo., have lost their voice in state governments as cities and suburbs grow while rural areas wither. For Colorado, that shift has helped send more Democrats to the state legislature and to Washington, and put the state in President Obama's column in the last two elections.
Here in Cheyenne County, where 82 percent of people voted for Mitt Romney last year, residents say they feel as if their state changed on them. There have never been more than about 3,700 people here, and the last two decades have brought sharp population declines as children moved away and the descendants of homesteading families died off. The county's population is now 1,870, about one resident per square mile.
Oil fields and resurgent prices for wheat and beef have helped the local economy — the unemployment rate is only 3.9 percent — but residents complain that lawmakers in Denver overlook the county when it comes time to finance schools and roads. The future of Keefe Memorial Hospital, the only medical center for 40 miles, is so tenuous that this spring it asked children to color pictures based on the theme "What if the Hospital Closed?"
"We're the bastard stepchild," said Victor Weed, a retired banker. "It doesn't matter what goes on out here. Our voice is too small."
People here in Cheyenne Wells, an atoll of ranch homes and grain-storage bins on an ocean of wheat, cite a list of complaints about what they call burdensome state rules. There was the $40,000 refueling pad that a crop-spraying company had to build. The higher power costs that farmers expect under new clean-power laws. The state inspectors who are leery of the empty fuel tanks under Mr. Miller's cafe.
But the push for a New Colorado did not take hold until Colorado's lawmakers, reeling from mass shootings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school, passed the state's first new gun control laws in a decade. The laws required background checks on private gun sales and limited magazine capacities, and drew scathing opposition from Republicans and rural conservatives.
As more and more counties voted to put secession on the ballot, gun advocates elsewhere in Colorado fought a successful recall campaign to unseat two Democrats who had supported the firearms laws. And 55 sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the new gun laws violated the Second Amendment.
Democrats have dismissed the recalls as low-turnout elections that did not reflect the views of most Coloradans and say secession is just a sideshow. But analysts say the efforts reveal a widening rift between rural and urban Colorado. The breach could pose political problems for the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, as he runs for re-election next year. He has already vowed to chart a more moderate course when the legislature comes back into session.
"There are enough people that feel their views and their opinions aren't being considered that I think that's a serious problem, and I take it very seriously," Mr. Hickenlooper said in an interview with KOA radio.
For conservative politicians like Rod Pelton, a county commissioner in Cheyenne, that sentiment comes too late. Mr. Pelton's family moved here from Kansas during the Dust Bowl, and he now grows wheat and dryland corn. The alert tone on his cellphone is a gun loading and firing, and he believes in the possibility of New Colorado, no matter how long it takes. "There's going to be a revolution of some kind," he said. "This is the peaceful way to go about it."
They should be shot.
Those sons of bitches, they complain about the state becoming too liberal from one side of their mouth then complain they aren't getting enough government money from the other.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Those sons of bitches, they complain about the state becoming too liberal from one side of their mouth then complain they aren't getting enough government money from the other.
It's only big government when it's doing something they don't want.
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Those sons of bitches, they complain about the state becoming too liberal from one side of their mouth then complain they aren't getting enough government money from the other.
Just because you want well-funded local services doesn't nean you have to be a social liberal.
Article says some think about joining up with Wyoming. I don't know, they might find Wyoming a tad too conservative for them.
Sad how they think this will prevent the inevitable march of progress.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2013, 10:03:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Those sons of bitches, they complain about the state becoming too liberal from one side of their mouth then complain they aren't getting enough government money from the other.
Just because you want well-funded local services doesn't nean you have to be a social liberal.
Don't try an interject sense. Republicans are evil and should be mocked at all times. :)
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2013, 10:10:46 AM
Article says some think about joining up with Wyoming. I don't know, they might find Wyoming a tad too conservative for them.
Bah, we need to keep those nice rectangular shapes on the map.
That guy at the end, with his gun-net cell phone sounds? He's silly.
Total poser.
Aren't there regions like that in many states? I would imagine that there is quite a gap between people living in the rural Adirondacks and those living in Manhattan too...
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 13, 2013, 10:03:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Those sons of bitches, they complain about the state becoming too liberal from one side of their mouth then complain they aren't getting enough government money from the other.
Just because you want well-funded local services doesn't nean you have to be a social liberal.
it's a catch all term that includes progressives.
Yeah, democracy sucks ass, alright.
What they should do is gerrymander themselves into an impenetrable enclave of conservatism, send somebody to Congress, and let everybody know what they think.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2013, 11:13:02 AM
Yeah, democracy sucks ass, alright.
Oh, it's great, as long as the majority agrees with you.
I'm always split between outrage at the grave injustice that was stealing the western counties from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fact that I'm mostly glad the people west of the Appalachians aren't part of the State at present.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 12:31:00 PM
I'm always split between outrage at the grave injustice that was stealing the western counties from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fact that I'm mostly glad the people west of the Appalachians aren't part of the State at present.
Was it really an injustice though?
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Sounds like the "normal people" are whiny magical-thinkers. Colorado definitely has too many of those.
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 12:31:00 PM
I'm always split between outrage at the grave injustice that was stealing the western counties from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fact that I'm mostly glad the people west of the Appalachians aren't part of the State at present.
Was it really an injustice though?
They still have plenty to go around in Virginia as it is. Everybody south of Frednecksburg.
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 12:31:00 PM
I'm always split between outrage at the grave injustice that was stealing the western counties from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fact that I'm mostly glad the people west of the Appalachians aren't part of the State at present.
Was it really an injustice though?
I don't see how it wasn't, the Constitution prohibits dividing States without the consent of the State involved. Right there in Article IV of the Constitution. Virginia never approved the splitting off of the western counties.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 12:31:00 PM
I'm always split between outrage at the grave injustice that was stealing the western counties from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the fact that I'm mostly glad the people west of the Appalachians aren't part of the State at present.
Was it really an injustice though?
I don't see how it wasn't, the Constitution prohibits dividing States without the consent of the State involved. Right there in Article IV of the Constitution. Virginia never approved the splitting off of the western counties.
Inter arma enim silent leges. When Virginia took up arms against the law, they got what they deserved.
Who is the law?
Karl Urban.
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 02:45:34 PM
Karl Urban.
Is that any good, been meaning to check it out as now on netflix.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobert.net%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FTelevision%2520Shows%2FHercules-Xena%2Fnormal_karl-urban-cupid.jpg&hash=463839cb039a1ba12cb075baa9b90f5de5e6e8e7)
?
:w00t:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 01:52:02 PM
I don't see how it wasn't, the Constitution prohibits dividing States without the consent of the State involved. Right there in Article IV of the Constitution. Virginia never approved the splitting off of the western counties.
I believe that Virginia did approve, post-war.
Quote from: katmai on October 13, 2013, 02:49:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 13, 2013, 02:45:34 PM
Karl Urban.
Is that any good, been meaning to check it out as now on netflix.
I like it a lot. :thumbsup:
It's very good.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 02:55:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 01:52:02 PM
I don't see how it wasn't, the Constitution prohibits dividing States without the consent of the State involved. Right there in Article IV of the Constitution. Virginia never approved the splitting off of the western counties.
I believe that Virginia did approve, post-war.
Yes, but only in the sense that if a man holds a gun to my head and asks for my wallet I "give" it to him.
As a condition for Virginia to receive Congressional representation in 1869, the U.S. Congress set as a condition for their readmission to legislative representation they accept all of the acts taken to make West Virginia a State during the war. Even with that coerced approval, I'd question the legality of the initial act in 1863 recognizing West Virginia. Since that initial act clearly goes against the Constitution, I don't see how something that is required before said act could happen could be accepted legally six years after the fact.
Sorry, when you are in rebellion all the shit that is done to you is deserved.
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
Sorry, when you are in rebellion all the shit that is done to you is deserved.
:yes:
Though I think I'd add something about your rebellion being unjustified because of suspect motives. After all, there are times when rebellion is justified.
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2013, 06:20:25 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
Sorry, when you are in rebellion all the shit that is done to you is deserved.
:yes:
Though I think I'd add something about your rebellion being unjustified because of suspect motives. After all, there are times when rebellion is justified.
Pffft, when it is justified it is a fight for freedom.
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2013, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2013, 06:20:25 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
Sorry, when you are in rebellion all the shit that is done to you is deserved.
:yes:
Though I think I'd add something about your rebellion being unjustified because of suspect motives. After all, there are times when rebellion is justified.
Pffft, when it is justified it is a fight for freedom.
Well yes. I wasn't trying to say the Civil War was one of those times.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2013, 02:55:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2013, 01:52:02 PM
I don't see how it wasn't, the Constitution prohibits dividing States without the consent of the State involved. Right there in Article IV of the Constitution. Virginia never approved the splitting off of the western counties.
I believe that Virginia did approve, post-war.
Yes, but only in the sense that if a man holds a gun to my head and asks for my wallet I "give" it to him.
As a condition for Virginia to receive Congressional representation in 1869, the U.S. Congress set as a condition for their readmission to legislative representation they accept all of the acts taken to make West Virginia a State during the war. Even with that coerced approval, I'd question the legality of the initial act in 1863 recognizing West Virginia. Since that initial act clearly goes against the Constitution, I don't see how something that is required before said act could happen could be accepted legally six years after the fact.
Technically, there was a pro-Union alternate Virginia state government formed in 1861 that gave its consent.
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Yeah crazy Lettowist idiocy is what normal people do.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2013, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Yeah crazy Lettowist idiocy is what normal people do.
Derspeiss will be more then happy to send over some taxpayer money when their two senators demand massive amounts of federal money to keep their constituents uneconomic farms afloat.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2013, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Yeah crazy Lettowist idiocy is what normal people do.
Derspeiss will be more then happy to send over some taxpayer money when their two senators demand massive amounts of federal money to keep their constituents uneconomic farms afloat.
Farm subsidies. Yuck.
Farm subsidies. Yay!
YAY! Give me mah corn checks.
lulz, Corn Chex.
The farm subsidies are awesome. One of those wonderful symbols of US political decadence. A policy that everybody hates left and right...but are completely unwilling to actually get rid of. Sort of like the minting of pennies.
Quote from: dps on October 14, 2013, 07:55:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2013, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2013, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Yeah crazy Lettowist idiocy is what normal people do.
Derspeiss will be more then happy to send over some taxpayer money when their two senators demand massive amounts of federal money to keep their constituents uneconomic farms afloat.
Farm subsidies. Yuck.
More then that. They rely on the rest of Colorado for their infrastructure one of their complaints was that they weren't getting enough funding. If they were their own state they would be requesting their infrastructure be payed for by the feds. Large rural areas with small populations can't build their own infrastructure.
QuoteThey bristle at gun control laws and marijuana shops, green energy policies and steps to embrace gay marriage and illegal immigrants.
So basically they have no issue with anything genuinely dodgy (except maybe the immigrants issue) and instead merely hate all the good points about the left?
Yeah, my respect for them: zero.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2013, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 13, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Good for them. Colorado used to have a good balance of hippies and normal people. Now there are way too many hippies that have moved in.
Yeah crazy Lettowist idiocy is what normal people do.
I think part of their problem is that it seems what counts as 'normal people' is changing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.ridemonkey.com%2Findex.php%3Fsize%3Dfull%26amp%3Bsrc%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fbenisawesome.files.wordpress.com%252F2011%252F10%252Fnetg1.jpg&hash=01c3e3a185829eb7f3cd69323639255db4466d6e)
Is there really any question about the legality of West Virginia?
Virginia illegally seceeded from the Union. The Richmond state government was, by definition, no longer a government of a state of the United States.
So an alternative government was formed, which was duly recognized by the United States, and said government approved of the division of the state.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me, at least as straighyforward as rebellion can be....
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:11:42 AM
The farm subsidies are awesome. One of those wonderful symbols of US political decadence. A policy that everybody hates left and right...but are completely unwilling to actually get rid of. Sort of like the minting of pennies.
:huh:
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol:), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 09:20:06 AM
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol:), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
I meant from a policy perspective amongst those in charge. I does say a lot that 2/3rds love Federal government waste though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 09:20:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 08:11:42 AM
The farm subsidies are awesome. One of those wonderful symbols of US political decadence. A policy that everybody hates left and right...but are completely unwilling to actually get rid of. Sort of like the minting of pennies.
:huh:
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol:), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
Very strange. That article says support has never gone below 60% but then they site a gallup poll that says 55%.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 09:20:06 AM
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol:), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
I meant from a policy perspective amongst those in charge. I does say a lot that 2/3rds love Federal government waste though.
Well, if
those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no? Those in charge have fucked up a lot of stuff by getting their way.
In fact, if you took those in charge and lined them up, end to end, around the equator...
... that would be a damn fine thing.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 09:20:06 AM
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol:), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
I meant from a policy perspective amongst those in charge. I does say a lot that 2/3rds love Federal government waste though.
Well, if those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no?
Not really. A lot of people opposed probably either don't like change and/or think that rounding will end up in results not in their favor - though on the face of it, I don't see why that would be true.
Besides, the split between keep and get rid of doesn't seem that sharp. Here's the referenced gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/23779/penny-worth-saving-say-americans.aspx
At any rate, there's no vast majority of penny haters nor a small and very dedicated group of single-issue voters in favor, so the analogy with farm subsidies falls apart. Most people don't care at all.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 11:09:28 AM
Well, if those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no?
Not really. Money exists to facilitate economic activity. Pennies do not only not do that, they cost the US economy and government a lot of money. So why keep dumping money into a failed policy? If people want pennies around for sentimental reasons there are billions out there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 11:59:22 AM
At any rate, there's no vast majority of penny haters nor a small and very dedicated group of single-issue voters in favor, so the analogy with farm subsidies falls apart. Most people don't care at all.
The analogy was meant to be they are both symbols, to me, of political decadence. Since it did not fit 100% I should not have made it. My mistake.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 12:03:56 PM
Since it did not fit 100% I should not have made it. My mistake.
:lol:
If it had fit 51% or heck even 10%, I'd have left it alone. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 12:03:56 PM
Since it did not fit 100% I should not have made it. My mistake.
:lol:
If it had fit 51% or heck even 10%, I'd have left it alone. :P
You, sir, are a wiser man than I.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2013, 09:20:06 AM
Taken from a pro-penny site( :lol: ), but it appears you're wrong. 2/3 polled want to keep the penny.
http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling (http://www.pennies.org/index.php/penny-polling)
I meant from a policy perspective amongst those in charge. I does say a lot that 2/3rds love Federal government waste though.
Well, if those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no? Those in charge have fucked up a lot of stuff by getting their way.
In fact, if you took those in charge and lined them up, end to end, around the equator...
... that would be a damn fine thing.
This is remarkably dumb statement.
Maybe only line them up around the watery parts?
Canada got rid of the penny, so the US should do the same. After all, Canada is a better place than the US.
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2013, 09:12:36 AM
Is there really any question about the legality of West Virginia?
Virginia illegally seceeded from the Union. The Richmond state government was, by definition, no longer a government of a state of the United States.
So an alternative government was formed, which was duly recognized by the United States, and said government approved of the division of the state.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me, at least as straighyforward as rebellion can be....
I'm not sure how a few counties in northwestern Virginia can duly be regarded as a proper Republican government for the entire State. That's basically what happened--and the Constitution requires and in fact guarantees each State a republican form of government.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 11:09:28 AM
Well, if those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no?
Not really. Money exists to facilitate economic activity. Pennies do not only not do that, they cost the US economy and government a lot of money. So why keep dumping money into a failed policy? If people want pennies around for sentimental reasons there are billions out there.
You did an excellent job of missing the point entirely. The italicized point. :lol:
Garbo completely missed it as well, but that's what I would expect. In your case, I was responding directly to your choice of words.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 11:09:28 AM
Well, if those in charge want to get rid of the penny, then I think that that is a pretty powerful argument to keep it, no?
Not really. Money exists to facilitate economic activity. Pennies do not only not do that, they cost the US economy and government a lot of money. So why keep dumping money into a failed policy? If people want pennies around for sentimental reasons there are billions out there.
You did an excellent job of missing the point entirely. The italicized point. :lol:
Garbo completely missed it as well, but that's what I would expect. In your case, I was responding directly to your choice of words.
Okay so what is the should have been obvious meaning of "those in charge"?
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2013, 04:39:58 PM
Okay so what is the should have been obvious meaning of "those in charge"?
I'm not sure what you mean. "Those in charge" seems pretty self-explanatory.
My post was more about the credibility of "those in charge," based on how things are going nationally.
:frusty:
On a different note why is this smiley (:glare:) called glare? That ain't a glare.
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2013, 05:04:35 PM
:frusty:
On a different note why is this smiley (:glare:) called glare? That ain't a glare.
That was what it was called back on old board, i didn't change names when we added them here. :)
Looks like a glare to me.
Quote from: katmai on October 14, 2013, 06:08:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2013, 05:04:35 PM
:frusty:
On a different note why is this smiley (:glare:) called glare? That ain't a glare.
That was what it was called back on old board, i didn't change names when we added them here. :)
What about the Garbon? :P
@Yi - Looks like annoyed eyes looking askance to me.
At what point did Maine split off? Pre-constitution?
Anyway, everything east of the Denver airport is basically Kansas.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 14, 2013, 09:24:48 PM
At what point did Maine split off? Pre-constitution?
Missouri Compromise.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 14, 2013, 09:24:48 PM
At what point did Maine split off?
Sometime around 9:40pm, I think.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 14, 2013, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2013, 09:12:36 AM
Is there really any question about the legality of West Virginia?
Virginia illegally seceeded from the Union. The Richmond state government was, by definition, no longer a government of a state of the United States.
So an alternative government was formed, which was duly recognized by the United States, and said government approved of the division of the state.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me, at least as straighyforward as rebellion can be....
I'm not sure how a few counties in northwestern Virginia can duly be regarded as a proper Republican government for the entire State. That's basically what happened--and the Constitution requires and in fact guarantees each State a republican form of government.
I'm not sure how one can regard any other proposed government as the "proper Republican government" for the entire state though. The one that was in rebellion is certainly not an option by their own admission.
You can't rebel against the Constitution and then turn around and whine that it isn't being followed to your liking.
Of course, there is an obvious remedy - if you feel that the action taken was not Constitutional, the Constitution itself provides an obvious remedy. The US Supreme Court is the arbiter for such things. What did they say about the formation of the state of West Virginia?
I would be surprised if Virginia ever filed suit on the matter, as a condition of them being given Congressional representation again they were required to include in the 1869 Virginia Constitution a provision that retroactively authorised the creation of West Virginia. Since the SCOTUS especially in that time would be very deferential to the State Constitution in question when it was a State issue, it's unlikely the State would rule in favor of a Virginia suit that in itself was in violation of the Virginia Constitution. It would probably in fact be unconstitutional in Virginia for an officer of the commonwealth to even pursue such a suit, which would preclude the matter even reaching Federal court.
That doesn't change the reality, that in contravention of the plain wording of the Constitution a small portion of northwestern Virginia was able to seize all of the counties west of the Appalachians ("trans-Allegheny Virginia") not to mention the counties by Maryland that follow the Potomac.
All of the counties basically south of Clarksburg/Bridgeport in Modern Day West Virginia did not vote in favor of secession from Virginia. When the referendum was held, they rejected it, but they were outvoted by the Northern counties. There's a complex history at play. Trans-Allegheny Virginia by and large had no slavery because it is extremely karstic and there simply isn't the geography to support the sort of plantation farming that requires slaves.
Unlike today, where Virginia is significantly larger in population than West Virginia, in the 1860s the population of the Trans-Allegheny counties and the eastern counties were much, much closer. When you exclude slaves, who were viewed as chattel by the government of Virginia, the white population in Trans-Allegheny Virginia was actually larger than in eastern Virginia. However, mirroring the situation at the Federal level, Virginia counted slaves as population for purposes of drawing State legislative districts, at 3/4ths of a person (so more favorable than at the Federal level.) This put what many Trans-Allegheny Virginias saw as unfair advantage in the east. They mostly used this to their advantage in crafting taxation bills as well. So for property taxes, taxation was done based on the full assessed value of holdings. If you were a farmer in Trans-Allegheny Virginia that meant all your land, improvements etc were assessed and taxed. However slaves were given a special exemption, and their assessment was capped at $300, even though only the most undesirable slaves (typically older slaves with no skills such as blacksmithing etc) would be genuinely valued that low. Many slaves were worth 5x more than that or even higher. So slave holders (overwhelmingly eastern Virginians) paid a far smaller share of their assets in property taxes.
This created a long term resentment in Trans-Allegheny Virginia, but to my mind much of this had been rectified in the Constitutional Convention in the 1850s that addressed many of these concerns and gave more fair political representation to Trans-Allegheny Virginia. In the 1860s it was basically a cabal of Wheeling area businessmen who opportunistically decided to split from Virginia, in large part based on past grievances (that had mostly been settled by the 1850s Constitutional rewrite.)
When they actually hatched their scheme, only the northern counties of Trans-Allegheny Virginia actually voted to break away. Basically the counties around Bridgeport/Clarksburg and North, including the Northern panhandle, about 13,000 people voted to break away from Virginia. Out of 70,000 registered voters in the whole of Trans-Allegheny Virginia. A central band of counties, stretching from east to west roughly along the borders of the current West Virginia 2nd Congressional District, cast some votes (5,000) in favor of secession, but a very small number. Most of the votes that came in from voters in those counties were actually cast from other counties.
The Southern counties didn't vote at all. Most of the population in the central counties did not vote at all. Why? Because they did not consider themselves citizens of the United States, so they had no interest in the "restore Government of Virginia's" statehood vote. They saw it as an illegitimate political exercise. Further, even if we accept it was legitimate, we typically have trouble accepting things like Puerto Rican statehood votes with very low turnout, and this vote had very low turnout.
As a final insult to injury, I'll note that the West Virginians serving in the Union Army were permitted to fill out absentee ballots and vote in this election. West Virginians serving in Confederate armies were not.
What's strange to me is we would let this small northwestern portion of Virginia vote to breakaway, and take with it a large portion of people who did not vote for it. Why not give them all of Virginia except for Richmond? Or some other ludicrous example.
Even stranger, the counties of the eastern panhandle of Virginia, including Harper's Ferry and etc, that follow the Potomac river were not even part of all of this in June of 1863 when West Virginia officially got started as a state. But when the Union armies took that land, Lincoln basically said "this is an important strategic area, I'm going to make it part of West Virginia to better protect it." So it was straight up taken by "right of conquest" which I don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Now, there was some business where the "restored government of Virginia" voted to "annex the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson" to West Virginia. But there are several problems I have with that:
1. Those counties were never considered part of Trans-Allegheny Virginia. In fact that are east of the mountains, and had always been culturally part of the rest of Virginia. Even today they are much nicer counties, and I'd be glad to have them back. They are mostly made up of people that commute into D.C. and consequently they are prosperous counties. [I would not take the rest of Virginia back, but I'd accept a large settlement in the billions of dollars for all the coal severance taxes we missed out on over the past 150 years.]
2. The governor of the "Restored Government of Virginia" was from Wheeling, present day West Virginia. He created the scheme to actually create West Virginia. When the scheme was completed, instead of becoming the First Governor of Virginia (as many expected) he kept his job as Governor of the Restored Government of Virginia and moved his capital to Alexandria, where he ruled the rest of the Federal-occupied portions of Virginia until after the Civil War. I don't see that he was acting in good faith on behalf of Virginia. After June 1863, his position would have been that West Virginia was now a State, and not the State for which he was governor. Why would the governor of Virginia approve sending counties to a different State? The only explanation is, he was acting on behalf of the part of Virginia he was actually born in, and was not acting as an agent in good faith for the people of Virginia.
3. They did hold a vote in the two counties in question, but they were basically depopulated as most of the men had gone off to fight for the Confederacy, and the elections were, ala Zimbabwe or something overseen by Federal troops, invalidating their result.
Damn,I had no idea that the US government didn't allow soldiers actively engaged in treason and rebellion to vote in absentee in an election under the political control of a nation they had rejected.
That changes my view on this completely.
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2013, 04:52:14 PM
I'm not sure what you mean. "Those in charge" seems pretty self-explanatory.
My post was more about the credibility of "those in charge," based on how things are going nationally.
That's pretty amusing that you just outright admitted to an ad hom argument, after years of bitching about ad homs from us. :P
So, for my purposes, I'm choosing to regard this comment as adroit sarcasm. ;)
Doesn't an ad hom argument attack the person you're arguing with? Don't think Boehner and Pelosi hang around here.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2013, 09:19:13 PM
That's pretty amusing that you just outright admitted to an ad hom argument, after years of bitching about ad homs from us. :P
:huh: I don't think "ad hom argument" means what you think it means. Not only did I make nothing close to an ad hom argument, but I didn't come anywhere close to "admitting," let alone "outright admitting," that I had done so.
I can understand the frustration of those Colorado counties but if they could secede then every state would have people who want to break away. Libs/Progs in conservative states would want to do the same. Even in Massachusetts we have 30-40 percent who likely feel they their votes don't count because the other 60% are the Libs/Progs who vote "D" no matter what.