Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I posted on the other thread ("Are we THAT divided?") ... I always used to say in a joking matter "that's it we have to sucede from the union." But lately, it's less of a joke.
I'm going to say that for me it's been largly in the last 8 years I felt this way. The Bush administration has been incredibly polarizing and they have really done the line in the sand "you're with us or against us" thing to death. Well, I'm NOT with them, and that does NOT make me anti-American. In fact, I thought that having the right to hold different opinions was one of the basic ideas behind our nation. But now, it's not really like that anymore.
I really worry about a McCain/Palin White House (should it come to be.) I used to think that McCain was a little different, but since being the GOP nominee, he's just been another poster boy for the party. Would he change if elected? It is hard to say. But Palin scares me half to death. I would really not want to live in this country if faced with this. Now, I do understand that some on the other side feel the same way about an Obama/Biden win. But this just goes to show that yes, we are that divided.
But could we really be 2 nations? Yes, we could. I can see it happening in time.
BUT there would be huge consequesnces. First of all, we'd probalby be bitter enemies with one another - which would not be a good thing.
Then there is this, I'm in a Blue State... but I have many friends who are "Red" as they come. I'm sure even within the Reddest Red state there are those who are more "blue." Would force people to move? Make your choice? A one time immigration acceptance? Let's not even GET into what we'd do with the "illegal immigrant" problem the currently exists if we were to divide into two nations.
Realistically, there would be much to be lost if we were to be seperate. I think if it got this bad cooler heads would HAVE to prevail. HOPEFULLY we'd have leadership that would try to unite us, not further divide us. I don't see this happening with McCain/Palin. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter...and I don't expect or want everyone to be... but I don't think Obama is as polarizing. I understand he's different on the issues than a lot of people belive, but I don't think he really uses scare & divide tactics. I never thought McCain would either, but he has.
I'm sure this will open much debate... so let's keep it civil!
Aside from the rural/urban divide, the differences above are personal, not confined to specific areas of the country. There are conservatives in NYC, liberals in Idaho, etc. And the rural and urban folks probably have more similarities than they do differences.
The problem is that what one side wants is what the other despises.
Not quite. There were no doubts among most people that secession was legal (as it's not forbidden in the Constitution), but some in the North (such as Lincoln) were willing to resort to force to not allow it. So it really hasn't been settled at all. I'm not that sure that Americans today would be willing to fight a Civil War like that again to stop others from seceding.
[mod cut] Loss of the Blue impoverishes the Red...who are more than smart enough to notice.
Last edited by katzenfreund; 09-15-2008 at 01:26 PM..
Reason: no insults please.
I think the first stages of a separate nation have begun, namely that many people are moving to states that are more in line with their political views. As a conservative who just moved from California to Idaho not only am I a part of that but I have seen it all around me in talking to people who have moved here too. The result of this shift makes the Red States more red and the Blue States more blue.
I think we are long, long way from two countries, however. I think the shift of people to states that match their views more closely might be the answer. The problem is when the values try to be applied on a federal level. It would be better if divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage were addressed at the state level. That way they could be handled in a way that matched the wishes of the residents without requiring two nations.
[mod cut] I wrote my final paper in college for a history degree on the states rights issue in the 19th century. I don't think anyone would want me to go into the kind of detail I could go into on it, and I'm not copying and pasting my work here as it may be published at some date. I'd invite you to research pre-Civil War arguments on states' rights and secession.
Last edited by katzenfreund; 09-15-2008 at 01:27 PM..
Reason: the sentence you answered to has been deleted
Not quite. I wrote my final paper in college for a history degree on the states rights issue in the 19th century. I don't think anyone would want me to go into the kind of detail I could go into on it, and I'm not copying and pasting my work here as it may be published at some date. I'd invite you to research pre-Civil War arguments on states' rights and secession.
You and 45,000 others reaching 41,000 different conclusions. None of which change the fact that people will fight to keep their ox from being gored. This has lots of Oxen.
I sure hope not and I don't see it as happening. I hope that the candidate of my choice wins, but if they don't, I will still accept the other candidate as the Leader of my Country.
So often I read posts about certain states wanting to secede and it's just not a wise choice. All we have to do is look at how we're viewed by the world and see how we'd like standing out there alone. Could be kind of scary for all of us. I just hope there is nothing that ever divides our country as drastically as the Civil War. We are much more vulnerable now to our outside enemies then in that era and it could end up being quite devastating for those that secede and for the ones who try to hold the country together.
You and 45,000 others reaching 41,000 different conclusions. None of which change the fact that people will fight to keep their ox from being gored. This has lots of Oxen.
Sometimes the truth is very damaging to one side in politics and so it gets ignored. The old "repeat a lie enough times and people believe it." It can be stunning how the majority in pre-Civil War America (from the end of the Revolution until the 1850's) did consider secession legal when one might expect a much more rigid North-South split. The Constitution was quite easily read to support secession, namely, by not forbidding it the same as other powers were forbidden to the states. Then, as all powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the states, were/are reserved by the states and the people, well, you have the basic argument for secession being legal. That North-South split emerged because of slavery and emotions over it. As secession was seen as the means of protecting slavery, anti-slavery Northerners were more than willing to deny the legality of secession in order to crush slavery. That era was quite the mess politically, but even the extreme radical abolitonist/anti-secessionist Chief Justice Salmon Chase appointed by Lincoln in TX v. White left secession/overthrow of the government open as a power of the people, claiming that it's not a power of states.
I think the first stages of a separate nation have begun, namely that many people are moving to states that are more in line with their political views. As a conservative who just moved from California to Idaho not only am I a part of that but I have seen it all around me in talking to people who have moved here too. The result of this shift makes the Red States more red and the Blue States more blue.
I think we are long, long way from two countries, however. I think the shift of people to states that match their views more closely might be the answer. The problem is when the values try to be applied on a federal level. It would be better if divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage were addressed at the state level. That way they could be handled in a way that matched the wishes of the residents without requiring two nations.
Actually, abortion and gay marriage are pretty much handled on a state level. The Supreme Court's "legalization" of abortion was very narrow, and states are free within the decision to enact all sort of restrictions. Too, even in a very conservative state such as Idaho, there are women who want abortions. It's not like all people in a given state think the same. In fact, the west, with its more libertarian view, generally has a lot of independent thinkers.
RE: red state-blue state-I think a lot of that is media-generated. Colorado is a supposedly "red" state with a Democratic governor, a Democratically controlled state house and senate; one Democratic senator, and four (I believe) of seven Democratic representatives. The mayor of Denver, while elected in a non-partisan election, is a Democrat.
I once looked up the stats for Indiana and they are similar.
Sometimes the truth is very damaging to one side in politics and so it gets ignored. The old "repeat a lie enough times and people believe it." It can be stunning how the majority in pre-Civil War America (from the end of the Revolution until the 1850's) did consider secession legal when one might expect a much more rigid North-South split. The Constitution was quite easily read to support secession, namely, by not forbidding it the same as other powers were forbidden to the states. Then, as all powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the states, were/are reserved by the states and the people, well, you have the basic argument for secession being legal. That North-South split emerged because of slavery and emotions over it. As secession was seen as the means of protecting slavery, anti-slavery Northerners were more than willing to deny the legality of secession in order to crush slavery. That era was quite the mess politically, but even the extreme radical abolitonist/anti-secessionist Chief Justice Salmon Chase appointed by Lincoln in TX v. White left secession/overthrow of the government open as a power of the people, claiming that it's not a power of states.
I am not aware of any sensible position that secession was not allowed. There is really no cogent argument it was forbidden.
So what?
They lost. And the winners got to set the precedent.
Given our tightly integrated federal system that is not going to change.
It is not what the founders intended but it is what it is...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
