Deviation Actions

Centurion030's avatar

HALEY by Yorktown

By Centurion030
15 Favourites
25 Comments
260 Views
Artwork by AdamKop
SRESS HALEY (SRV-1972)
Sothern Republic Space Exploration Corps
Launch Day: Passing by the USS Yorktown
The Flight to Oz Book I: Arrival
Image details
Image size
1800x1350px 569.23 KB
Published:
© 2016 - 2021 Centurion030
Comments24
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
menapia's avatar
Southern Republic? is that some future era country in one of your stories?
Centurion030's avatar
Yes. In 2021, the Republic of Texas was first formed followed in March of 2021 by the Republic of Southern States (Southern Republic).
menapia's avatar
2021? that's a bit close to the knuckles but never say never, there was a Justice Rawles back in the 1820's who wrote one of the first books about your U.S. Constitution & mentioned Secession.  

The guy thought that while it was a worrying and terrible option he held that it was legitimate "if" the majority of the people of a State decided on it, I suppose it would be harder for the Feds to shout treason if there was a State held democratic referendum 
Centurion030's avatar
Well here is the thing, the South wasn't trying to take over the North, they just wanted to leave and run their own country.

Here is something that has influenced me:
"If the authors' case has merit, does not a practical difficulty render what they have defended with such care inoperable in our own world? In a world of colossal states, how can a small republic hope to survive? Livingston ably faces the problem, noting in the first place that small states do not always lose conflicts with larger ones, and in any case pointing to federation as one possible solution. Here he appeals to David Hume, who "agrees with the republican tradition that 'a small commonwealth is the happiest government in the world within itself' but 'it may be subdued by great force from without'" (p. 143).1

Hume proposed a large republic composed of 100 small republics. Laws passed by the national senate required ratification by a majority of the constituent republics. In essence, Hume thought, the advantages of small size could in this way be joined to the greater fighting power of a large state.

Hume's ideas, along with similar views by other writers, influenced the founders of the American republic; and here we arrive at the second of the two major contentions of this book. It is that America was founded not as a centralized Leviathan but as a federation of republics, each of which retains intact its sovereign power, except on matters delegated to the national government. Each state, on this view, retains the right to leave the federation, should it deem that the national government (or the other states) has sufficiently violated its rights. The 11 Southern states that seceded in 1861 thus acted legally, whether or not they were wise to do so.

Kent Masterton Brown, in his long and learned contribution to the book, very forcefully defends this position. As he points out,

The Constitution is an agreement "between the States so ratifying the same" [quoting the Constitution]. It has parties — the States. Each of the parties agreed to surrender some powers in exchange for receiving a "common defense" and some regulation of commerce between the States when it was necessary.… Each party retains the right to rescind its ratification of the Constitution if there is a material breach by other States or by the federal government created by the Constitution.… The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution unquestionably understood it to be a "compact." Not only did the document, in form, contain all the elements of a contract, but the prevailing political thought of revolutionary America underscored the fact that written constitutions were "compacts." (pp. 42–43)

Though Brown's argument is strong, I should like to have seen a response to an objection. If states could withdraw at will from the union, why did the anti-Federalists so much stress in the ratification debates the dangers of centralization? If a ready remedy existed for federal usurpation of power, why was such usurpation so perilous a prospect? Perhaps, though, they did not doubt the legal possibility of secession but rather feared that in practice it would prove difficult to carry out with success — as indeed proved to be the case in 1861.

If the Constitution established the United States as a decentralized federation, unfortunately federal aggrandizement of power in the long run prevailed. In an incisive essay, Thomas DiLorenzo explores the steps by which the old order was upset. As he makes clear, from the beginning of our national history, Alexander Hamilton, whom Cecelia Kenyon aptly termed the "Rousseau of the Right" (p. 72), and his followers, dissatisfied with the decentralized government of the Constitution, endeavored to substitute for it a regime of centralized power. In this endeavor, Hamilton had the very considerable help of Chief Justice John Marshall, whose nationalist opinions often echoed Hamilton's words.

Marshall also repeated Hamilton's bogus theory of the American founding, claiming that the "nation" somehow created the states. He amazingly argued that the federal government was somehow created by "the whole people."… In the name of "the people," Marshall said, the federal government claimed the right to "legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory." (p. 70)

Readers of DiLorenzo's outstanding books on Lincoln will not be surprised to learn that he assigns Lincoln a large measure of responsibility in the drive toward national consolidation.2 Marshall DeRosa is entirely in accord:

Lincoln rhetorically explained [at Gettysburg] that he launched the U.S. into a war of aggression against the C.S.A. in order to re-found America without the Southern defilement; this is what he meant by a "new birth of freedom." The physical evidence lay all around him in Gettysburg that Southerners were not to have a government of, by, and for the Southern people but a coercive government based in Washington, D.C. (p. 94)

For the contributors to this book, secession is not an issue confined to the past. They regard it as an essential remedy for the ills of today's overly large America. In this connection it is interesting to note that secession had the backing of the renowned American diplomat and historian George Kennan, who, in a manner that would have delighted Thomas Jefferson, called for America to be broken up into a number of regional commonwealths. "To begin the debate, and without being dogmatic, Kennan suggests that the Union could be divided into 'a dozen constituent republics'" (pp. 21–22)."

mises.org/library/rethinking-a…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVmgUq…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_-U1…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-W5fG…

menapia's avatar
We might have similar arguments here in Europe - The E.U. has tried to create a constitution but that was knocked out when referendums voted it down, the current treaties were designed to get the main points into effect while being so turgid and buried under jargon as to be impenetrable to the ordinary citizen.

There is definitely no pretense that the various E.U. bodies are to be kept accountable to the citizenry and example might be the Lisbon Treaty we in Ireland voted down because it seemed to give more power to the E.U. institutions....you know how that went we were sent back to the polling booths a few months after so we could give the "right" answer
Centurion030's avatar
Funny how in the beginning it was supposed to be about economics.

Was never really about that but raw power.
menapia's avatar
P.S. have you ever heard of a book called "Incompetence" by Rob Grant it's a satirical detective story set in a future United States of Europe. 
Centurion030's avatar
No I haven't....

Maybe I have somewhere. Maybe you might have mentioned it.
menapia's avatar
During my final term E.U. law was the second subject we needed to cover, mostly it was stuff like what are your rights within the Common Market zone like what are the rules for being able to vote etc. if you move to an E.U. country, gain welfare rights, health service access and all the boring as hell stuff about how E.U. law deals with monopolies, cartels or govt.s giving "special" favours for certain companies.

Quite a lot of our health and safety in the workplace law was brought up to a decent spec due to the E.U. (thank Christ) and then there's one of the Hague Conventions which deals with the serious matter of child protection i.e. like when your spouse or partner illegally takes your child out of the borders of their native state you can compel the local courts & police force in their new state to ascertain what situation the child is in and to ensure the kid is actually safe.

But now you have institutions making laws, councils meeting in-camera where there's no public oversight or accountability and generally acting like a govt. without all the guarantees or safety checks to keep them accountable.  

Hew it down and build something that actually answers to the people it purports to serve
Centurion030's avatar
I totally agree. Many countries were sold on just the economic aspect.

Seems that was the gateway drug to un-elected despotism.
Centurion030's avatar
Thank you-I am very please with Adam's work!
Centurion030's avatar
Yes-he did a good job!
Heimotoza's avatar
Centurion030's avatar
I was glad to finally have a picture of the HALEY!
Centurion030's avatar
He did a great job!
shykess's avatar
What software did you use to produce this? Looks really cool :D (Big Grin) 
Centurion030's avatar
Will have to ask Adam on that. He did a great job!
Centurion030's avatar
Yeah-Adam did a great job!
Centurion030's avatar
Adam did very well!
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In