Anyone interested in secession?

[John Edward Mercier]

Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.
They would have stronger a stronger case that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstititonal.

So its really a matter of which way they went.

But for NH to cede it would need to begin acting like a country... and in fact if it acted like a country without secession occuring... the point would be moot.

[KBCraig]

Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.

Even more likely, it's because "Oklahoma" was created by the federal government in 1907, well after secession was a settled matter, and while carpetbagging was still in full force.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.

Even more likely, it's because "Oklahoma" was created by the federal government in 1907, well after secession was a settled matter, and while carpetbagging was still in full force.

I think it had most to do with the composition of the delegates who wrote it - of the 112 delegates, 99 were Democrats.  Here's a pretty interesting write up on it that I found a while back:  http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK036.html     I haven't fact checked any of it yet, but it's full of basic info with only a little bit here and there of personal opinion type stuff.

What's carpetbagging? 

[error]

Do you live in Oklahoma? Time to get out of that dust bowl.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Do you live in Oklahoma? Time to get out of that dust bowl.

I wasn't sure if you were asking me if I live in Oklahoma, but just in case: no, thank gosh, I don't.   

Another state I'd move out of very, very quickly is Illinois.  At first, I thought it was fantastic that so many voters in 2008 voted against the constitutional convention (for their state constitution, which they are asked every 20 years to vote on, because of an article in their state constitution that stipulates it happen) - until I read their preamble.  Illinois is a state where a Constitutional Convention (in 20 years, with time to educate the youth/current elected officials on the role of government) might actually be a good idea.  Not yet, though, because too many just still don't understand the principles of liberty and freedom or the role of government.

Check out the Illinois preamble:  We, the People of the State of Illinois — grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors — in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois

Key parts of concern:  eliminate poverty and inequality

1. eliminating poverty is not the role of government - so the question is, by what method will they be eradicating poverty?  Governments, once they take on issues that are not a role of government, only have a few methods they can (and do) implement.  Through forced taxation/charity by force (inhumane for both giver and receiver and unsustainable)  - and then government beaucracy set up to distribute/manage/dictate a redestribution of wealth (neither cost effective or compassionate, as it promotes dependence and class wars.)  Poverty actually becomes a vicious cycle and is never 'eliminated' but made a constant and never-ending 'battle' that can not be won... poverty ends when people are taught to be self sufficient, creative, and live within their means.  The seeking and obtaining of happiness is not reliant on a certain financial bracket - some of the happiest people I know are or would be considered 'poor' by some, in financial ways.  Not everyone in poverty seeks to be rescued from it - some enjoy the simplicity of life's other blessings that can't be bought with money (re: family, friends, religion/faith, accomplishing personal goals/efforts.)  Take the Amish, for instance... they aren't known for their weath, in terms of dollars, but they are considered some of the most centered, peaceful and sustainable communities on this planet.  And as another example, a lot of freestaters aren't wealthy, but they are centered, peaceful and sustainable in their new community(s)

2. The equalities established (re: right to life, liberty, acquiring/protecting property, seeking/obtaining of happiness) along with a few other inalienable/unalienable rights that aren't cited in constitutions but are self evident (re: the right to one's own charity/good will towards mankind, the right to individual sovereignty, the right not to be forced into any government's or non-government's ideology/actions on a town/city, state, national or global scale without individual consent) are all the equalies we are born with - there's no way for governments to sustainably obtain/achieve , morally or logically, equality in social status, financial status, health status, or any of the other social aspects of life - the equality was supposed to be in regards to rights, not 'things' like money, education, etc.  When governments take on any of the 'things' where equality isn't capable of being achieved via force (because it breaks the code of life/peace in attempting to do so, re: don't lie, cheat, steal - keep promises made - the non-agression principle.) What you end up with, as a result, is less equality, not only in the original unalienable/inalienable rights, but you also end up with less equality even in terms of things like health care/education (which is why our public officials put their kids mostly in private schools, and why they have better health care coverage paid for by tax payers than the tax payers get from a tax funded health system - it is never equal!)

The superior become those in government itself - and it's a hard cycle to break, because the majority of them won't do anything to stop it from growing, in their favor they believe, without recognizing that it's even their own wellbeing that is put at risk - because the system will eventually collapse, and along with it, all of their pension plans, health care systems, and their dependence on the government itself will have to be confronted - it's the same dependence they pushed society, as a whole, to depend on... which is why elected government positions shouldn't be careers as they have become.  I'm not even sure it should be a paid positiion. 

It will all have to be phased out- with promises kept to those already in some positions.  But a lot of state and federal government workers are going to find themelves in a big, big mess in the upcoming years... they got bigger than the societies that support them, and got a phenomonally large portion of that society dependent upon them - which means, the pool of private sector workers got very, very small - but, large enough to revolt (peacefully - non compliance - etc.)

In Massachusetts, it got real bad - although you'll hear and read different numbres on this, the fact is that those who work for or are paid, in total or partially, from town/city, state/fed government is above 50% (has been since the late 1990s) - and one requirement they put in place not long ago for ANY town/city, state, fed job/funded worker is that the worker MUST register to vote.  They can't tell you how to vote, but needless to say, you will hear about (daily, for weeks, months) about how voting a certain way on certain issues (especially anything tax based) will lead to job layoffs.  Elections of any kind (local, state, federal, special) are seeing larger numbers of voters now, but it's the kind of voter with a conflict of interest, fraudulent information, and if they dare walk into work that day without an "I voted!" sticker on their jacket or shirt, they will be penalized in some way, shape or fashion (they can mandate you be a registered voter, but they can't tell you how to vote, only make suggestions, and I'm not sure if they can also force you to vote, but most will vote, because the implications are things like not moving up in the job, office hostility/politics, losing the job, etc.)   


That was just one of the things I found out about Massachusetts that had me investigating other states to move to - thankfully, around the time I learned of some parts of that data, it would only be a few years later that the Free State Project began.  It took a long while to get here, but I am here.  In New Hampshire.  Ironically, New Hampshire was one of the places we had discussed moving to anyways, because of how pro-liberty things were here even prior to the FSP.  My father had lived here once before, and visited up here quite often.

This kinda turned into more than I wanted to write about, but, well, there it is.   Kinda a huge way of saying I don't live in Oklahoma.  Hope that question was for me, after all this text, good gosh.  :stuffs sock in own mouth: -