Should Alaska be given Independence if the majority of the people wish it.

[??????????]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

[JSojourner]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

I'd have to disagree, but I are a Yankee.

As to the Angel of Marye's Heights, I have the painting on my living room wall.  For those who don't know the story SR is referring to...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_marye's_heights

Sgt. Kirkland should be regarded as a hero everywhere, north or south.

Ambrose Burnside, on the other hand.... 

[??????????]

Cool. I have the Battle of the Brickyard and the Battle of Devils Dens (original oil paintings) on my wall.

[Smid]

I think Britain was wrong to try to deny the US independence when the population supported it. Likewise, I think it would be wrong for Washington to try to deny Alaskan independence if the population supports it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think Britain was wrong to try to deny the US independence when the population supported it. Likewise, I think it would be wrong for Washington to try to deny Alaskan independence if the population supports it.

But this really isn't the question.
The question is, given that everything else is equal, if a majority of Alaskans wanted independence, should the U.S. afford it to them?

The U.S. declared independence in the face of oppression by the British Crown.  A war ensued, and with the help of France (lest all you France haters forget) we won.

Now if the U.S. were openly oppressing Alaskan citizens, I would agree with their right to secede.  If they just decided they wanted independence for sh**ts and giggles, I'd say no.

[Frodo]

Unless they have a damn good reason for it, hell no. 

[Storebought]

Only if the US has done something heinous against them, like waging military or economic warfare against them.

[Smid]

I think Britain was wrong to try to deny the US independence when the population supported it. Likewise, I think it would be wrong for Washington to try to deny Alaskan independence if the population supports it.

But this really isn't the question.
The question is, given that everything else is equal, if a majority of Alaskans wanted independence, should the U.S. afford it to them?

The U.S. declared independence in the face of oppression by the British Crown.  A war ensued, and with the help of France (lest all you France haters forget) we won.

Now if the U.S. were openly oppressing Alaskan citizens, I would agree with their right to secede.  If they just decided they wanted independence for sh**ts and giggles, I'd say no.

If a majority of Alaskans wanted independence and the US didn't give it to them, then that would amount to oppression and overturning their democratic rights.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I knew this would be a Nomo topic just looking at it in the board index. Is that skill?

[Erc]

The AIP's point (I believe) is that the people of Alaska never got the chance to decide whether they wanted to become a state or not (like the people of Puerto Rico now get from time to time).  Letting aside, for now, the issue of independence, is that a valid concern?  Should US territories have the right to choose whether they wish to become a state or not through a democratic vote?  And, more to the point, I suppose, what was the historical practice for accession of territories?

[The Mikado]

No.  If the United States wanted to grant independence to its trust territories and to its colonies (like it did with the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, etc), that's one thing.  But once that territory becomes a state, part of the that indivisible Union with freedom and justice for all, it can never leave.

[Lunar]

I think the Civil War answered this question realistically.

Even more realistically, note that throughout the world, it is the regions with the most economic resources that want to secede (Nigerian Delta region with a lot of oil, Chechnya, etc).  That is because these regions give more money to the national government than they take back from it.  National governments absolutely do not want to see these areas leave, thus no chance.

As to the answer to this thread's question, it depends on the reason.  My answer is "No" if 51% simply vote for independence without context.

[JSojourner]

I think Britain was wrong to try to deny the US independence when the population supported it. Likewise, I think it would be wrong for Washington to try to deny Alaskan independence if the population supports it.

But this really isn't the question.
The question is, given that everything else is equal, if a majority of Alaskans wanted independence, should the U.S. afford it to them?

The U.S. declared independence in the face of oppression by the British Crown.  A war ensued, and with the help of France (lest all you France haters forget) we won.

Now if the U.S. were openly oppressing Alaskan citizens, I would agree with their right to secede.  If they just decided they wanted independence for sh**ts and giggles, I'd say no.

If a majority of Alaskans wanted independence and the US didn't give it to them, then that would amount to oppression and overturning their democratic rights.

Are they taxed without representation?

Are federal troops quartered on private property by force?

Are citizen demonstrations violently broken up?

[afleitch]

Yes.

The same way I believe that should over 50% of my country vote for independence in a referendum we should be granted it.

[??????????]

I think the Civil War answered this question realistically.

If I came into your home, held your family hostage at gunpoint and that situation stayed the same for a while would I have moral authority? Would an amount of time lend credibility to the argument that holding hostages is moral or right? In other words, does might equal right?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

States, what is the difference between the US forts in the CSA and US forts in, say, Germany?

[??????????]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

States, what is the difference between the US forts in the CSA and US forts in, say, Germany?

Not much in my opinion. We are there at the hospitality of Germany not by our own force.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

States, what is the difference between the US forts in the CSA and US forts in, say, Germany?

Not much in my opinion. We are there at the hospitality of Germany not by our own force.

So, if Germany opened fire on a US fort in Berlin, that would be enough to declare war?

[??????????]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

States, what is the difference between the US forts in the CSA and US forts in, say, Germany?

Not much in my opinion. We are there at the hospitality of Germany not by our own force.

So, if Germany opened fire on a US fort in Berlin, that would be enough to declare war?

The situation isn't quite the same. The US and Germany weren't under a mutual constitution.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Top notch post JS. Really can't follow up on it on the compassion issue because I agree. Ever read the story of Mayres Heights at the Battle of Fredricksburg?

The argument I'd give you about the federal arsenals is that once the south seceded the territory those forts and depots were on became confederate territory and the govt had the right to seize them. I guess it really all depends on your line of thought although I believe the constitution says no where about "federal land" of the magnitude of what we have now. I believe that land the federal govt has is granted by the states (aka the people) and the people (state) upon review can renege on the "lease" so to speak.

States, what is the difference between the US forts in the CSA and US forts in, say, Germany?

Not much in my opinion. We are there at the hospitality of Germany not by our own force.

So, if Germany opened fire on a US fort in Berlin, that would be enough to declare war?

The situation isn't quite the same. The US and Germany weren't under a mutual constitution.

State's, do you hold that the war itself was a valid war?  Because the way I see it, the US had every right to declare war on the CSA, because they attacked a US fort.

[??????????]

Read my earlier post on my opinion on Federal territory and the state of how it exists.

[Everett]

I fully support giving Alaska independence if the majority of Alaskans desire it. It should be allowed to leave the United States any time it wishes to. Why withhold freedom from them? (It would be nice if Alaska remained on friendly terms with us, though.)

[memphis]

Absolutely not. The US paid good money to the Russians for Alaska. It turned out to be a good investment, as Alaska has a lot of natural resources. The federal gov't still owns most of the land up there. You can't just leave the US.

[??????????]

Absolutely not. The US paid good money to the Russians for Alaska. It turned out to be a good investment, as Alaska has a lot of natural resources. The federal gov't still owns most of the land up there. You can't just leave the US.

Yeah but your side won't let us use those resources.

[memphis]

Absolutely not. The US paid good money to the Russians for Alaska. It turned out to be a good investment, as Alaska has a lot of natural resources. The federal gov't still owns most of the land up there. You can't just leave the US.

Yeah but your side won't let us use those resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_pipeline