You are not logged in.
Tom,
You are correct there are no perfect solutions. And perhaps a pipeline across their land is the best solution, when all detriments and benefits are considered. The problem arises when they get the detriments and you get the benefits. I am sure BP didn't intend to contaminate the Gulf of Mexico with oil and were very sorry when it happened. But it did. These people don't want those sorts of consequences for what should be understandable reasons. Their concerns should be addressed and a compromise reached, they should not simply be trampled upon just because big money happens to be involved.
Last edited by Antius (2016-12-05 06:02:45)
Offline
If you're so worried about funding middle eastern terrorism, are you campaigning for an embargo on their oil? As it is, Americans use far more energy than they need to. I figure it's better for Americans to use trains and walk to the shops than to get bombed, don't you agree?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Tom,
You are correct there are no perfect solutions. And perhaps a pipeline across their land is the best solution, when all detriments and benefits are considered. The problem arises when they get the detriments and you get the benefits. I am sure BP didn't intend to contaminate the Gulf of Mexico with oil and were very sorry when it happened. But it did. These people don't want those sorts of consequences for what should be understandable reasons. Their concerns should be addressed and a compromise reached, they should not simply be trampled upon just because big money happens to be involved.
Well is that the shortest route this pipeline could take? Just wondering, because if we divert around the reservation, and that was the case, we'd have to make the pipeline longer, a longer pipeline has more surface area compared to he volume of oil, and thus a greater chance of leakage. Does someone else deserve to have polluted drinking water more than the Indians, and if we make he pipeline longer, there will more likely be a spill, but there is even more likely to be a spill if we use railroad cars to ship the oil, so really the safest way to ship the oil is through a pipeline, the whole country would benefit from cheaper oil, if the Indians don't like it, perhaps they can be bought out, if not there is something called eminent domain. Can we address the Indian's concerns without funding terrorists? The question is are they really worried about the water supply or are they working for he Arabs or the Russians to set up roadblocks to our energy independence? Solar power is nice but its not ready, fusion isn't ready, wind power has its own NIMBY problem and its more expensive, Nuclear power is a problem too in that regard. If the Indians are really worried, we can buy them out and they can live someplace else, is that really a problem?
Offline
The Alaskan oil pipeline has leaked many times and that is what they fear.....
thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill onto the frozen tundra in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay
here is another time: BP pipeline leaks oily mixture onto Alaskan tundra
The pipeline system presents major environmental and design challenges. It crosses more than 800 rivers and streams, three mountain ranges, and three major active faults. Three-quarters of it traverses fragile permafrost. It is built in zigzag fashion to allow for expansion and contraction during temperature changes as well as movement from possible earthquakes.
So adding more length to a pipeline does not make it worse....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill
Offline
The Alaskan oil pipeline has leaked many times and that is what they fear.....
thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill onto the frozen tundra in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay
here is another time: BP pipeline leaks oily mixture onto Alaskan tundra
The pipeline system presents major environmental and design challenges. It crosses more than 800 rivers and streams, three mountain ranges, and three major active faults. Three-quarters of it traverses fragile permafrost. It is built in zigzag fashion to allow for expansion and contraction during temperature changes as well as movement from possible earthquakes.
So adding more length to a pipeline does not make it worse....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill
Pipeline vs a railroad, which is more dangerous? Do you want railroad cars crossing that same country, containing crude oil? What if one derails, what if it explodes or spills its contents on the ground? What if people die in the accident?
Offline
I am flexible where oil transport is concerned. Water is worth protecting, and at this time significant wealth can be produced by mining and transporting oil.
I feel that the entities involved should work out a compromise of some sort. Companies were not allowed to make the Alaskan pipeline as cheaply as they wanted, safeguards were imposed to protect the environment.
Going back to the topic: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name, I have a few things to say.
Two ideas exist. A NAU or a UNA.
NAU:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
UNA:
http://unitenorthamerica.org/ (Apparently a monarchist version).
I had spent a lot of time on this site, which is not very active anymore:
http://www.annexation.ca/community/
The forum was originally run by somebody else, but now Americalex is the guy.
He is a French Canadian, Qubecker, who does not like the idea of the (Correction, I originally said UNA, I meant NAU), and wants Canadian Provences to join the USA under the US constitution. (At least that is what I recall).
Many other Canadians had other ideas.
Any way, I agree with him that an NAU is bad.
Examples of the kind of government it would give us would be the USSR, or the EU. We don't want that.
As far as a UNA goes, I consider it to be impractical at this time, as the various members of NAFTA are too different in their cultural views and histories.
Just for fun though I will stir the pot, and make a post about the UK joining NAFTA or having a free trade agreement with the USA.
Last edited by Void (2016-12-06 17:56:56)
Done.
Offline
The UK in a free trade agreement with NAFTA or the USA.
The existing president was very cold about this idea, but Trump is apparently supportive of it.
I would have to think that most members here will be interested, as they are either in a NAFTA country, or the UK, or possibly in another country which just possibly might end up in the mix.
USA - UK trade deal: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/b … eal-224776
So, a possible change in the landscape.
Last edited by Void (2016-12-06 12:41:31)
Done.
Offline
Oil transport modes, ranked from most dangerous to least: truck, train, ship, pipeline. Pipeline is the least dangerous, but every single one of them leaks sooner or later, often disastrously when they do. There is as yet insufficient incentive to build better, or to actually do regular maintenance/repair/replacement.
The hue-and-cry is "too much regulation", but in this case, there is still not enough of the right regulations. No other conclusion is possible, if you ditch the ideolgies and just look at verifiable facts.
That is not to say that the regulations in place are the right ones. In point of fact, I think not, because in recent decades, lawyers outnumber scientists at EPA. Simple as that. Fix that, and a lot of troubles go away for both the government and the industry giants who build these things. And a lot less money gets wasted on useless paperwork crap.
And, both the conservative and the liberal political ideologies on things like this are just flat wrong. And most other things. Most of you out there have been brainwashed into believing one or the other of them. My recommendation (and it is quite sincere): ditch the ideologies and use your brain and your common sense, overtly, on each issue as it arises.
The ones on these forums who spout ideologies the loudest appear to be the most brainwashed, and by far. I say this: if you believe in ideologies, then you believe in lies. You know who you are.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-06 13:20:33)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
The simplest course is to let the States worry about their environments and get the Federal Government out of the business of regulating the environment. I'm sure if the EPA ceased to exist, and the States would all want dirty air and dirty water, naw quite the opposite in fact, so why not trust the states t regulate their own environment? The EPA was created by the Nixon Administration after all, the United States had parks before he Nixon Administration. The Federal Government is concerned with the whole country, but individual states are concerned with themselves. The Federal government does no care if some backwater state suffers because few people live their, but the government of that same state does! Its time we got back to being a Federal Republic, and stop the Federal Government from subsuming all the functions of state government, and allow those states to develop.
Offline
Tom, you idiot, look at the facts instead of your f**king ideology! Pollution crosses state lines and has for a long time now. It even crosses international boundaries and entire oceans. Those are INDISPUTABLE facts.
You do NOT effectively address things that widespread on a state-by-state basis. That's the most egregiously-stupid thing you have said yet, at least that I have observed!
We have cleaner air and water than China precisely because we have had an EPA (and the corresponding state agencies!!!) for a long time now, and they (the Chinese) never did until recently, if at all. Again, look at facts, NOT your ideology! Ideology is LIES, no matter whose!
I told you already just above what is wrong with EPA, why it has gone completely off the rails filing too many lawsuits over too many Byzantine regulations. EPA is a mostly just pack of lawyers today. They have few, if any, credible scientists anymore. Why ELSE would the toxic chemicals list have seen no progress in at least 20 years?
Fix the lawyer problem, and modernize the regulations to eliminate their influence, and you will have a far more effective agency, cleaner water and air, and far less onerous paperwork bullshit to comply with.
And get the f**king politics out of their work, too!
An example: why require asbestos removal when asbestos fiber concentrations are invariably higher after "remediation" than before? Just repaint over it and use it in place. But DO NOT sand, grind, scrape, scratch, or otherwise fragment it! No matter what else, don't do anything like those activities. And don't use it in new things unless there is no other way. That's the only asbestos regulation we need. And everybody in that asbestos remediation industry already knows that, but will not speak up because their livelihoods are fundamentally based on an over-regulated lie! Catch-22!
Another example: metallic mercury CANNOT hurt you until it is heated to steam temperatures. We have known that for over two centuries. So why is such a big deal made over spilling it? Because methyl mercury (from paper mills) CAN hurt you (quickly and drastically), AND those technically-ignorant lawyers cannot distinguish between the liquid metal and the organo-metallic liquid soluble in water.
There are many more equally egregiously-stupid examples. Need I go on? I hope not.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-06 15:44:24)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I don't know much about EPA. But most countries have environment agencies. Environmental damage can only be locally managed if the effects are local. If it isn't policed properly the results can be disastrous. Five years ago, I ran some calculations on the health effects of deep water horizon and found that they easily exceeded Fukushima. The spilled oil contaminated marine food supplies with polycyclic hydrocarbons. I don't know exactly how many cancers it is going to cause, but results suggested it would be hundreds. And that ignores the ecological damage to wildlife in the area.
High consequence industries need to be regulated and policed at a national and international level. However expensive safety is, an accident is always more expensive.
By reneging on global warming agreements the US may be missing an opportunity. The bottom line is, coal and oil reserves are gradually depleting. Ultimately, some form of nuclear energy will need to replace them. It is better to bite the bullet now and develop this technology rather than pretend that there isn't a problem.
Last edited by Antius (2016-12-06 18:03:36)
Offline
Part of the problems come back to the greed when doing design as the engineers will write specification for an item and they will be asked to reduce costs. This may still leave a product still able to handle most issues but not as well as the more robust item. Then you go out to contract or purchase and without good quality controls in place for what gets used we end up with an even more compromised build of what we want.
The pollution does go beyound the land and water as indicated by Antius into the food change for all wildlife and others it does not stop. Once in the path of humans it does cause many diseases and this can even be born out with well water tests and cancer watches in the area surrounding of the contanmination damaged area.
We are thinking of having a methane economy on Mars and its a better choice when possible than that of oil......
Offline
The disparity of the EU and how its tried to be a new nation does not work as its to deverse not only with language, culture but on the monitary end as well. The US, mexico, Canada nation would not be as bad as there is the greater distances to isolate some of this, less language differences and not so different currency between 2 out of the 3 countries.
So we would need to come up with common documentation of birth for the new nation to better recognize its people with, a better system for voting for elections of all type, more uniform laws to govern the new nation with....
Offline
If there was to be a North American Union, I think it would have to start with the US and Canada, since the gap between them economically and culturally isn't anywhere near as big as that between them and Mexico. Though I have my eyes on Canada for a stronger Commonwealth, instead, comprised of the anglospheric CANZUK countries. I think a CANZUK union would actually be a potential superpower...
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Tom, you idiot, look at the facts instead of your f**king ideology! Pollution crosses state lines and has for a long time now. It even crosses international boundaries and entire oceans. Those are INDISPUTABLE facts.
You do NOT effectively address things that widespread on a state-by-state basis. That's the most egregiously-stupid thing you have said yet, at least that I have observed!
We have cleaner air and water than China precisely because we have had an EPA (and the corresponding state agencies!!!) for a long time now, and they (the Chinese) never did until recently, if at all. Again, look at facts, NOT your ideology! Ideology is LIES, no matter whose!
I told you already just above what is wrong with EPA, why it has gone completely off the rails filing too many lawsuits over too many Byzantine regulations. EPA is a mostly just pack of lawyers today. They have few, if any, credible scientists anymore. Why ELSE would the toxic chemicals list have seen no progress in at least 20 years?
Fix the lawyer problem, and modernize the regulations to eliminate their influence, and you will have a far more effective agency, cleaner water and air, and far less onerous paperwork bullshit to comply with.
And get the f**king politics out of their work, too!
An example: why require asbestos removal when asbestos fiber concentrations are invariably higher after "remediation" than before? Just repaint over it and use it in place. But DO NOT sand, grind, scrape, scratch, or otherwise fragment it! No matter what else, don't do anything like those activities. And don't use it in new things unless there is no other way. That's the only asbestos regulation we need. And everybody in that asbestos remediation industry already knows that, but will not speak up because their livelihoods are fundamentally based on an over-regulated lie! Catch-22!
Another example: metallic mercury CANNOT hurt you until it is heated to steam temperatures. We have known that for over two centuries. So why is such a big deal made over spilling it? Because methyl mercury (from paper mills) CAN hurt you (quickly and drastically), AND those technically-ignorant lawyers cannot distinguish between the liquid metal and the organo-metallic liquid soluble in water.
There are many more equally egregiously-stupid examples. Need I go on? I hope not.
GW
I'm just saying since the states already have environmental regulatory agencies, we don't need a Federal one, just as we don't need a Federal Education department either, rather that try to fix those two agencies, why not just get rid of them and save some money. Next tie some Administration wants to use the EPA to go beat down private property rights and businesses, it won't be there! The IRS has been used as a weapon against Republicans, so I would get rid of that too, though the Trump Administration doesn't appear to be so inclined. This practice of using Federal Agencies as political weapons against classes of people has got to stop, which is why I don't trust the Federal Government to do much of anything other than the stuff that only Federal Governments can do, such as National Defense for instance. If each state had its own Defense Department, there would be 50 countries instead of 50 states, so obviously that is a Federal Responsibility, but we don't need a Federal EPA. The environment is local, let it be handled by the states! Another example would be NASA, NASA is a Federal Agency, and there are no comparable state Space Agencies, if there were, not every state would have one, their budgets would be too small to accomplish mush of anything as each state would have a different idea of what to do, and space exploration is way down the list of priorities for states to do, so therefore NASA is a Federal Agency, Education on the other hand has a high priority among states, each state has a different idea of what's important, and we don't need a Federal Education Department, because that only becomes a propaganda tool for the Federal Government to indoctrinate our children, it is also uncompetitive, states compete with each other and they can measure their educational programs against each other, but not if the Federal Government sets uniform standards for them!
Offline
If there was to be a North American Union, I think it would have to start with the US and Canada, since the gap between them economically and culturally isn't anywhere near as big as that between them and Mexico. Though I have my eyes on Canada for a stronger Commonwealth, instead, comprised of the anglospheric CANZUK countries. I think a CANZUK union would actually be a potential superpower...
There is one American Union already, it is the one soldiers in blue fought for against the Confederacy during the Civil War, The United States of America is a Union of states, its constitution was designed to protect states rights against a Federal Government which seeks too much power, but citizens must be active in making this happen. I don't think we need to create a whole entirely new creature out of whole cloth, we have a North American Union already, and we have a mechanism to accepting new states, although it hasn't been used much recently. Canada can join the Union as either one state or many, as one state it would have the population of California, as many states it would get more representation in Congress. No need to write a new Constitution, we can use the one that was written in 1788, it has an amendment process and has worked pretty well so far. We don't need to reinvent the Federal Republic every time we propose a larger union. We have one that works quite well right now. Now lets talk about the differences between the three North American countries, the people of Mexico are called Mexicans, the people of Canada are called Canadians, but the people of the United States are called simply Americans, America is the name of the Continent in which the United States are of, in a sense Canadians and Mexicans are also Americans because they live on that continent. We Americans didn't bother naming our nationality so we just too the name of the continent instead! Maybe that's because we were the first independent country of the Americans while the rest were colonies, every other country that got their independence afterwards needed a name to distinguish themselves from us, we didn't. So one path would be for other countries to join our Union, each addition would change us as a people, adding Mexico would add a whole lot of Hispanics, adding Canada would add another 30 million people to our population, it probably would not be noticed as much. Then there are other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the UK, put those together and we have the entire Anglosphere in one political unit, I'd invite Ireland to join as well.
Offline
Eh, I think it could work. It would require adding 50 new provinces to Canada, and they'd have to get used to having the Queen on their money, how does that sound? Maybe not take all of them, but allowing the border states to join the Expanded Provinces, so there are no enclaves in the United States.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Eh, I think it could work. It would require adding 50 new provinces to Canada, and they'd have to get used to having the Queen on their money, how does that sound? Maybe not take all of them, but allowing the border states to join the Expanded Provinces, so there are no enclaves in the United States.
I can’t see the point of this. We already cooperate on common projects and are all part of NATO. Perhaps there are grounds for deeper economic and military unions, but a common nation?
Trying to maintain a nation that spans three different continents is something the UK has some experience of. Does anyone really expect that a government thousands of miles away is going to be more effective than one close by, made up of people that actually live there? I already feel that politicians in London are detached, ivory tower ideologues. Are politicians in Washington really going to understand problems in Manchester or Glasgow any better than politicians in London? Can they really deal with problems in those places any more effectively?
The answer should be obvious. It is why the UK made Canada and Australia first dominions and then independent countries in the first place. It was not practical to govern these regions from a capital on a different continent. Although transportation has improved now, I still cannot see it being practical to deal with issues in Australia from a capital in the US or London. Every time you need to meet to discuss an issue you have a 20 hour plane journey to contend with. And teleconference, whilst a useful tool, is never as good as actually being there. All of these countries have separate legal systems and different climatic conditions that necessitate different codes and standards. The European Union is collapsing as we speak due to these very problems. Bureaucrats in Brussels cannot effectively develop one size fits all solutions for entirely different economies, with separate legal systems and different cultural priorities.
Offline
Since Donald Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA, I would ask that Canadians be allowed to bid on contracts in the US with ITAR restrictions. That shouldn't apply to Canada. In other words, closer ties between the US and Canada. I could come up with more things, but ITAR affects me; NASA contracts. Wouldn't this make more sense than trying to form one giant country?
Online
Yes, I think that NAU mild, very mild is the way to go. Some dialog and methods between countries exist and can be formalized to a degree, but it is counterproductive to make "One Size Fit All".
Done.
Offline
Terraformer wrote:Eh, I think it could work. It would require adding 50 new provinces to Canada, and they'd have to get used to having the Queen on their money, how does that sound? Maybe not take all of them, but allowing the border states to join the Expanded Provinces, so there are no enclaves in the United States.
I can’t see the point of this. We already cooperate on common projects and are all part of NATO. Perhaps there are grounds for deeper economic and military unions, but a common nation?
Trying to maintain a nation that spans three different continents is something the UK has some experience of. Does anyone really expect that a government thousands of miles away is going to be more effective than one close by, made up of people that actually live there? I already feel that politicians in London are detached, ivory tower ideologues. Are politicians in Washington really going to understand problems in Manchester or Glasgow any better than politicians in London? Can they really deal with problems in those places any more effectively?
The answer should be obvious. It is why the UK made Canada and Australia first dominions and then independent countries in the first place. It was not practical to govern these regions from a capital on a different continent. Although transportation has improved now, I still cannot see it being practical to deal with issues in Australia from a capital in the US or London. Every time you need to meet to discuss an issue you have a 20 hour plane journey to contend with. And teleconference, whilst a useful tool, is never as good as actually being there. All of these countries have separate legal systems and different climatic conditions that necessitate different codes and standards. The European Union is collapsing as we speak due to these very problems. Bureaucrats in Brussels cannot effectively develop one size fits all solutions for entirely different economies, with separate legal systems and different cultural priorities.
The glue which would have held the British Empire together were its North American colonies. When the United States became a separate country, the bulk of the British Empire was in India, Canada was an Empty country, Australia was an empty continent, New Zealand was a couple of islands. The rest of the British Empire consisted of colonies with majority Native populations. Its hard to rule a country, when the majority do not consider you to be one of them. The Indians wanted their independence, they did not want to be ruled by a white minority from London, and the British did not want to give the native Indian population equals rights and the right to vote in parliament, because then it would become the "Indian Empire!"
If the American Revolution never happened, then World War II might no have happened, it was one thing for the Third Reich to go against the British Empire and have the United States stay neutral for the first three years, but if the United States was part of the British Empire, there would have been no neutrality, the resources of the United States added to Great Britain would have landed on Germany like a ton of bricks. Hitler's strategy relied on keeping the allies divided so they could conquer on country at a time. A United British Empire that included North America all the way down to he border of Mexico, would have been something Hilter would not have wanted to tangle with!
Putin is much the same, when he looks at a map of Europe, he sees a bunch of small countries, so he figures if he can keep them divided, he can conquer them one at a time, while giving the others reasons to remain neutral until their turn to be conquered came up. Putin can sign a peace pact with France while he invades Poland, and reassure the French that all he wants is Poland, so the French remain neutral.
Offline
Please remember that I speak for myself. Others do not.
Done.
Offline
The only difference between the United States and the European Union, was that the EU's constitution was poorly written, you have member states that do not contribute to the Common Defense, such are Ireland, and Austria, You have a defense organization such as NATO which is separate from the EU. The EU is basically a substitute for the United States, if all the EU and NATO members joined the United States, it would make a much more effective Union, it would be able to defend itself, and it would have much more resources to do the job. One of the great barriers to new states joining the United States, is its overbearing Federal Government, while NATO and the EU government too little, the US Federal Government governs too much! The US Government steps on too many cultural toes, it has no business deciding for all 50 states what marriage is and how it should be defined. I think this Union needs to be loosed up a bit, the EU is too loose, it is too easy for a member state to secede from the Union, because the EU doesn't have a military force, NATO isn't subordinate to it The original idea behind the US Constitution was that it was a mechanism for collective security for all 13 states. The most explosive growth in the United States was before the Civil War, that was back when the US Government supported itself with tariffs, and the States did most of the governing when it didn't come to defense matters. One of the side effects of the Civil War, besides the abolition of slavery was to make the Federal Government much stronger in relation to the states. I think if we are to expand the United States, we need to make the Federal Government weaker and the state governments stronger, that way it would be more attractive for new member states to join. That is why I say we don't need a Federal EPA or Education Department, we need to get down to basics, to what the Federal Government was created for in the first place. Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers had the EPA in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-12-09 09:58:56)
Offline
I might argue that they attempted to accomplish too much too soon. They also relied on "Bonding" force that they got from the USA, and perhaps Canada, through NATO.
In my view this is a counteracting force that combats the degeneracy which develops from civilizations as they age. In my opinion unfortunately civilizations follow the path of an internal evolutionary force, and begin to ignore natural evolutionary forces. This then create a substitute selective breeding force which favors excessive verbal and violence skills, and the forces of nature to develop an intelligent human which can work with tools falls out of favor.
In my view the process of "Middle Easternism" is a prime example of this. These are old cultures where it is more important to verbalize and use violence to replace tool making humans in the breeding process. It hinders the process of developing a technological humanity.
They read books that tell them that it is allright to consider other humans as consumable property to dispose of and remodel as they please.
Now you might think I am atheist, but I am not. I consider the new testament to be an intervention against Middle Easternism.
I also do not consider Middle Easternism to be the only human cultural process which is damaging the future for the humans race.
I consider the wilderness to be a good treatment for Middle Easternism and its siblings.
I also consider that the United States can use other cultures that are less damaged to help keep more damaged cultures from hindering the potential of the human race to progress.
By the way I have a Acronym for the Verbal and Violent. I label them the "VV's".
Now that you can see them, use your available tools to minimize their damage to the human race.
Last edited by Void (2016-12-09 11:01:14)
Done.
Offline
I think European States are conflicted, on one hand they want to preserve their national identity, on the other hand they want o be strong enough to resist aggression and conquest. There is strength in numbers, all the countries of free Europe can pool their resource together and make themselves into a superpower just like the United States, problem is they risk the central government getting too strong and crushing their national identities and cultures. Now the 50 states of the United States don't have strong national identities, part of the reason is that the Federal Government got too strong, and didn't leave enough stuff for the State Governments to do, there used to be a stronger state affiliation, part of this was reflected in the Southern Rebellion of the Civil War, slavery was the spark that lit this fire, but the fuel was State Pride and resistance to the Federal Government telling them what to do, this is how the South got people who didn't own slaves to fight for the continuance of slavery. Slavery was an unfortunate cause to rally behind, but a lot of it was simply stubbornness and resistance to the Federal Government telling them what to do. The thing is, in this they had a point, the Federal Government was usurping their states rights, and although fighting slavery was a just cause, when the Federal government won, it also became more powerful in relation to the states, and it has continued to get more powerful ever since. Maybe at one point the Federal government was too weak, if it was stronger the Civil War would not have happened, but now the scaled has tipped too much towards the Federal Government and it needs to be rebalanced towards the states, not so much that they break off and become separate nations, but there is a balancing act. We need the Federal Government strong enough to keep us as one nation, but not so strong as to crush he power of the states. The Federal Government was after all created to benefit the states, not crush them. We could recruit new states if we didn't have such an overbearing and overpowerful Federal government as we do now.
Am I wrong? Lets see, what happens when I suggest to RoberyDyck that Canada join the United States? He gets mad, he calls the United States Imperialistic and overbearing, and what he is actually criticizing is the overbearing Federal Government that has crushed the independence of the 50 states, and he doesn't want the same thing happening to his country. That's understandable, but try to get him to admit that! I think he believes in the power of the Ottawa government to fix things, lots of people to the left of center politically look towards the central government as the solver of problems, not to the government of say Ontario, or Alberta for example.
Most liberals in the United States don't believe that the government of a State is the right place to go to implement their policies, they always look to do that at the national level. Liberals always go to Washington is they are Americans. If they can't get Washington to do what they want, then they go to a suitably liberal state government, but they would rather implement it at a national level if they could.
Offline