I just ran across this little thought experiment... what if the "Tea Party" movement was a black movement?

Link:
http://tinyurl.com/25km4ya

It has to be one of my favorite blog posts yet about why the Tea Party is both repulsive and getting far too much respect from the media.

(did not willingly enter into anyway)

The Baltic States were conquered by an invading army. The 13 colonies all voted to join the United States. That IS the difference. Also, there are methods build into the American system to allow for political change, unlike in the Imperial Russian or Soviet system.

That changes it from a popular uprising against an invading power to a rebellion. The Constitution does mention rebellion... it allows the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion.

Tolstoy: The Delian league isn't very apt either. That would be more like the status of Imperial Germany, with the state of Prussia dominating, despite any theories of equality between the several states of the German Empire.

No State had the utter dominance of Prussia (or Athens), therefore the comparison isn't quite accurate

oh, ok. I gotcha DbJ

Texas was guaranteed the right to secede upon its entrance into the Union. Regardless of the status of states in general, Texas at the very least had the right to secede - but apparently the rights Texas demanded in order to join the Union were effective only until they were to be exercised - then they became unconstitutional.

Texas was not guaranteed the right to secede. It had the right to break itself up into five states.

Tolstoy: obviously there's only a tiny fringe of people in the "Freedom Movement" who actively seek to reinstate slavery in the United States. I'm saying, rather, that the principles of the freedom movement were explicitly and specifically designed as arguments for slavery. If put into effect, they produce a country dominated by white people with money.

DingleBerry - you could argue that you have a right to put your car in a lake?

I'm glad to see your logic fails in this thread as much as it does in others. It confirms my suspicion that you are simply a mouthy, silly prat.

(Just to fill in the blanks if that last post from Krellin made no sense. I had no idea who he was, didn't remember crossing his path before. A quick profile check shows he had post in two threads previously.

Krellin is a brand new member here, and he was unhappy that everyone disagreed with him (including me) in a recent thread called 'Not Hitting Ready...'

In addition, I (and a few others) took an opposing view from him in the 'please take a look at this game...for cheating' thread, in which he argued in favor of public accusations of cheating in the forum, despite the mods wishes.

Krellin, good luck in your games and welcome to our website and forum. Its not much, but we like it.

@Hunter: so you think The North should have let the South go?

Regarding the old saw about Texas... Texas' "right to secede" was only asserted in the first state constitution... and is not present in the current and thus the relevant one. ...so, the assertion of the "right to secede" is actually against Texas law (and similarly in every other state)... and thus is not a state right at all. Secessionists betray not only the U.S. but also their state.

It strikes me as funny how much some on the right see patriotism as something relative only to them. "My country right or wrong" is their motto so long as it is someone else being wronged (everything from racial profiling and wire tapping to water boarding and indefinite detention to wars under false pretense)... but, when they are personally encroached upon in the smallest of ways - such as theoretically higher taxes (when actually taxes have been lowered to the lowest levels in 60 years for 98% of the population - and the other 2% is back to levels that are still lower than under Reagan), then all bets are off... secession and assassination become the rallying cries. Tea Partiers and their ilk (including their Confederate forebears) are about white privilege - not freedom.

"@Hunter: so you think The North should have let the South go?"

I'm not sure really. I think that the south had the right to leave, if that is what you are asking. The country was still very young, and I'm not sure why the North thought they had the right to keep half a nation enslaved (for lack of a better word, and the irony that comes with it. ;-)). I think that things worked out for the best in the end, minus the dead soldiers, but I don't know how things would have played out if the North let them go. We would have had a lot less destruction, and who is to say that they wouldn't have eventually made up?

If I'm allowed to use hindsight, then I think that if America had been split into 2 (maybe even more eventually) different countries, then history changes a lot. Instead of one super power, you have 3+ (Texas has always wanted to be alone. :P) countries, and that could easily affect the outcome of both World Wars, along with other important international disputes.

So, no. I don't believe the North should have let the South go, but I think that the South had the right to leave.

@ Dexter- Way to generalize. ;)

@Hunter49r, yes - I realize that there are exceptions - there are thoughtful people that call themselves Tea Partiers... but the movement itself didn't start in any real sense until 2009 (where were they during the much more radical Bush years? - oh yeah, supporting him whole-heartedly)... This is more about frustrated Republicans looking to hate on Obama then anything else. (as an illustration, in an online poll on the TeaPartyPatriots website 52% blame the current economic crisis on Obama and only 15% blame Bush... and 18% blame Clinton... even with 8 years of Bush to undo whatever dasterdly things Clinton did. To blame a recession on Obama that was in full swing months before he was even elected - much less sworn in - is the height of delusion... and makes it impossible, among other reasons, for me to take them seriously).

There is, for example, a huge difference between the early Reform Party and the Tea Party. Another example of an actual grass-roots movement with some validity is the Modern Whigs. Both the Reform Party and the Modern Whigs lean right in a libertarian way but are never the less about presenting a real alternative. They were/are honest and thoughtful (I recognize this even as I disagree with some of their stands). The Tea Party movement gets about as much respect from me and probably the majority of the population as the American Independents did under George Wallace in 1968. Did you read my earlier link (second post on this page)? I don't know how anyone can take them seriously as a political force - I mean other than as a identity movement with violent overtones groomed by FreedomWorks, Foxnews and Sarah Palin, et al... I don't see them as anything more than a privileged white version of the Black Panthers.

@dexter, I like that thought experiment.