Is Political Separation in Our Future?

[Captain Huk]

Indeed Yes! Excellent Article!

[Mountainbear]

Time to split and the sooner the better.

[moestooge]

"One nation" is more theory than reality. What does Alabama have in common with New Jersey, or Montana with Massachusetts? Break it up and let the leftists have their own areas and bear the full consequences of their desires.

[Mugwump]

Of course the Abbeville guys are a bunch of neo-Confederate apologists for the South, so it's natural that they would see secession/breakup as a natural and even preferred solution. I can see them rubbing their hands at the prospect of re-establishing slavery, or at least a racist Jim Crow regime.

It's a very poor idea, as anybody can tell who would think about for roughly 30 seconds, or who has just been watching the progress of Brexit.

[CaryC]

Well ask Ted Turner, he owns over a Million Acres. He was on top of that list, now he is 2nd with the most acres. LOL

The first thing one would need to do is to determine who the land was purchased from.

If the land was purchased from the US Government and a Land Patent extended, then he does in fact own the land. If the land was purchased from an individual and was extended a Warranty Deed, then he does not OWN the land in fact, but is only renting the land, and taxes are due and payable.

BTW recently Trump opened up the availability for individuals to purchase land from the government, and a Land Patent should be extended to anyone purchasing that land. Meaning, no taxes.

[CaryC]

Of course the Abbeville guys are a bunch of neo-Confederate apologists for the South, so it's natural that they would see secession/breakup as a natural and even preferred solution. I can see them rubbing their hands at the prospect of re-establishing slavery, or at least a racist Jim Crow regime.

It's a very poor idea, as anybody can tell who would think about for roughly 30 seconds, or who has just been watching the progress of Brexit.

Not so much as a reply to Mugwump specifically, but rather their reply constitutes an over view of the historical ignorance in our country. Which is even worse when noting present day situations in foreign lands.

The OP itself noted historical ethnic situations including Britain, when the sun never set on the British Empire, used as a saying in 1852, and the Hapsburgs of Austria. They could of just as easily used Yugoslavia, and the ethnicity of that country, and what happened when it broke up. A person's skin color had nothing to do with it.

However, it should also be noteworthy that no secession, including Brexit is ever easy, Britain is still a separate nation, with it's own coinage (the Pound), and no one is going to declare war on it for seceding.

And the idea; the OP, it's author, and those who read those articles, are modern constructs, I would note the following:

During the period of roughly 1936-1939 The Aberdeen Examiner (a newspaper in Aberdeen, MS) under took the task of reconstructing some articles, actually letters by Mr. W. B. Wilkes to the Aberdeen Examiner, originally printed in 1877, '78, '79. Some of the letters were lost, or to faded to read, but what they could do, they did, and reprinted them.

From there those articles along with other stories and articles appearing in various local newspapers, were compiled into a book called "Mother Monroe". It's a history of Monroe County Mississippi.

The following appears in "Mother Monroe" on page 73, and recites the article from the Aberdeen Examiner dated Jan. 7 1937, and is taken from the letter by Mr. Wilkes in the late 1870's.

Number XIX Continued 1855 to 1865 (that would be letter 19 and is pt. 2 of the history during those dates, only a portion of which I will put up here because it pertains to the OP )

The Civil War

Agitation for secession from the Union began soon after the formation of the Government (177. In fact, the war of the Revolution was not supported by certain sections of the country, nor by certain segments of the people. The property owning classes were against it in most of the country except Virginia and they were very luke warm in their support of Washington and his army. Philadelphia, New York and Boston were hot beds of disloyalty. When the Revolution won certain New England States were very reluctant to join the Union. Rhode Island was an example. No sooner had the constitution been ratified than agitation for secession began. The first such movement crystalized into the Hartford Convention. Thereafter, there were periodic outbreaks of the secession spirit in nearly every one of the states, even as far west as Wisconsin. Scarcely a state escaped it. The South stood more solidly for the Union in that period than did any other part of the country.

Usually the advocacy of so called states' rights went hand in hand with the secession movement. Between 1845 and 1855, the people of the South saw great danger to their economic security through the growth of the abolition movement. However, during this period, that had the political strength nationally to protect their property. (as noted below this only refers to slaves in part)

The newspapers and the political speeches at the beginning of the decade (1855) show that the owners of property were anxious, but they were rather confident of the ability to protect what they had bought and paid for. In that period the agitation for secession came from the North. Later, threats of secession were coming from the South as well as the North.

A couple of additions:

First most of the Confederate Generals, including N. B. Forrest were against secession. UNTIL Lincoln called for raising an Army. That one move changed many a mind.

The

Hartford Convention

was a series of meetings from December 15, 1814 to January 5, 1815, in

Hartford, Connecticut

, United States, in which the

New EnglandFederalist Party

met to discuss their grievances concerning the ongoing

War of 1812

and the political problems arising from the federal government's increasing power.

............................................

Secession[edit]

Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Otis, the key leader of the Convention, blocked radical proposals such as a seizure of the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and the other delegates took charge, the radical secessionists might take power. Indeed, Otis was unaware that Massachusetts Governor Strong had already sent a secret mission to discuss terms with the British for a separate peace.^{[5]:362—370[2]:48}There are a number of reasons why historians doubt that the New England Federalists were seriously considering secession. All the states, especially Connecticut with its claims to western lands, stood to lose more than they would gain. Efforts were made in the delegation selection process to exclude firebrands like John Lowell, Jr., Timothy Pickering, and Josiah Quincy who might have pushed for secession, and the final report of the convention did not propose secession.^{[4]:219–220[2]:53}Despite this, the Madison administration had reasons to be concerned about the consequences of the Hartford Convention. Federalists were already blocking administration efforts to finance the war and bring it to a successful conclusion with an invasion of Canada. There were fears that New England would negotiate a separate peace with Great Britain, an action in many ways just as harmful to the nation as actual secession. In preparing for a worst-case scenario, Madison moved troops from the New York–Canada border to Albany where they could quickly be sent to Massachusetts or Connecticut if needed to preserve federal authority. Several New England regiments that had participated in the Niagara campaign were returned home where it was hoped that they could serve as a focal point for New Englanders opposed to disunion.^{[4]:219–221}

Note the concern for loss of property.

I would also note that any, and all secessionism, or breakup of a nation, Revolution, except Briexit, which isn't a conventional secession, has always been with blood shed. Nearly 90% of the Civil War was fought in the South. There were no Rebels and their battle flag burning Chicago, Detroit, or New York and Boston. None of them knew what Jackson, MS knew. It was called the City of Chimney's. Because it was burnt to the ground …...twice.

Is political separation in our future? Before you answer, count the cost because the cost will be high.

[Idaho Bullwinkle]

Did you know that only 50 people Own 75% of the land in the USA? I bet you didn't

I am sure that is true.
They are likely of the Nobility Class, are truly State Citizens without a Federal "birth Certificate", and operate in the Private through Trusts.

[Hoppalong]

https://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/

No. 1 John Malone

2,200,000 acres
In addition to its focus on the productivity and profitability of its cattle operations, Malone’s SILVER SPUR RANCHES makes the preservation of historic structures and time-tested traditions a priority as well. One of the many examples of this takes place on New Mexico’s BELL RANCH, an historic land grant that dates back to 1824. In 2010, Malone acquired the Bell from the heirs of William Lane, who had reassembled 290,100 acres of the original Pablo Montoya grant. Two years later in 2012, a chuck wagon rolled out of Bell Ranch headquarters and the crew spent the next four weeks preparing grub for Bell cowboys during spring works. The wooden-wheeled wagon was pulled by a pair of Bell Quarter Horses. “We’ve been so fortunate that Silver Spur has bought the Bell Ranch and has allowed us to maintain some of these old traditions and bring some of them back,” said Kris Wilson, the Bell manager who resurrected the tradition.
THE FULL LIST: AMERICA’S 100 LARGEST LANDOWNERS

1. John Malone
2. Ted Turner
3. Emmerson Family [Up 3,566 Acres]
4. Reed Family [Up 359,232 Acres]
5. Stan Kroenke
6. Irving Family [Up 1,644 Acres]
7. Brad Kelley
8. Singleton Family
9. Peter Buck [Up 125,000 Acres]
10. King Ranch Heirs
11. Pingree Heirs
12. Wilks Brothers
13. Briscoe Heirs
14. Lykes Heirs
15. Hamer Family
16. O’Connor Heirs
17. Thomas Peterffy [Up 20,000 Acres]
18. Ford Family [Down 203,000 Acres]
19. Martin Family
20. Stimson Family
21. Holland Ware
22. Westervelt Heirs
23. D.R. Horton
24. McDonald Family
25. Simplot Family
26. Fisher Family
27. Philip Anschutz
28. Jeff Bezos [Up 20,000 Acres]
29. Holding Family [Down 4,790 Acres]
30. Hughes Family
31. Zane & Tanya Kiehne [NEW TO LR100]
32. Malone Mitchell 3rd
33. Stefan Soloviev [Up 1,377 Acres]
34. Collins Family
35. Shannon Kizer
36. Robinson & Freed Families [NEW TO LR100]
37. Mike Smith [Up 12,386 Acres]
38. Llano Partners
39. Barta Family [Up 37,000 Acres]
40. Bass Family
41. Collier Family
42. Fasken Family [Up 19,128 Acres]
43. Kokernot Heirs
44. Killam Family
45. Babbitt Heirs [Up 5,000 Acres]
45. Lee Family
45. Anne Marion
48. Galt Family
49. Lyda Family
50. Hadley Family [NEW TO LR100]
51. Coffee Family
52. Jones Family
52. True Family
54. Reynolds Family
54. Sanders Family
56. Paul Fireman
57. D.K. Boyd
58. Riggs Family [Up 5,486 Acres]
59. Koch Family
60. Nunley Family
61. Kenedy Memorial Foundation
62. Louis Bacon [Up 1,016 Acres]
63. Brophy Family [NEW TO LR100]
64. Bidegain Family
65. Yates Family [Up 2,493 Acres]
66. Cassidy Family
67. Scott Family
68. Eugene Gabrych [Up 18,000 Acres]
69. Hearst Family [Up 3,000 Acres]
70. East Foundation
71. T.R. Miller
72. Gage Heirs
73. Russell Gordy
74. Cocanougher Family
75. Anthony Family
75. Hunt Family
75. Langdale Family
75. Arthur Nicholas
79. Skiles Family
80. Offutt Family
80. Stewart & Lynda Resnick
82. Williams Family
83. Durrett Family
84. Bridwell Heirs
84. Haynes Family
86. Kennedy Family
87. Mike Mechenbier
88. Broadbent Family
88. Irwin Heirs
90. Sugg Family
91. Jones Sisters
92. Cogdell Family
92. Fanjul Family
94. JA Ranch Heirs
95. Reese Family
96. Ellison Family
96. McCoy & Remme Ranches
98. Boswell Family
98. Eddy Family
98. Green Heirs

[Christian]

This is the first thing that you have ever posted that I would consider to be useful.

[Mugwump]

I don't know about Ted but if I don't pay my taxes I lose the land---so it seems that I am merely buying the privilege to pay the government rent for the land

A more useful and accurate analogy would be to consider taxes your homeowner association fees. The "taxation is theft" meme is just stupid.