The South Will Rise Again (crimes, live in, moving)

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by FSUMike

Unfortunately there is not any sizeable secession movement really anywhere in the US, maybe especially in the South. Money talks, and the Feds have largely appeased the masses with hand-outs and programs.

Yes, America is "strong", but is being "strong" and end in and of itself? I believe there are more important things. We see what America's "strength" has been used for, constant military adventurism all over the globe and strong-arming weaker nations into submission to our "interests".

America won't last forever, no nation has or will. Liberty and prosperity cannot possibly be maintained with such a massive, centralized government covering such a massive area with such a massive population, especially when that massive government likes to meddle overseas. You might be able to preserve liberty, and you might be able to preserve prosperity, but I don't think both. Liberty in the classic republican sense is already gone, and has been for a while.

I just wish states would break off and be independent before it becomes a necessity, before corruption and decay make it inevitable.

The North American continent needs to be more "Balkanized" for lack of a better word. Dozens of smaller republics that can better serve their citizens and where the citizens can better preserve their liberties and interests.

I would point you to this article if you are interested: Policing the World

Excellent points! I've been thinking that as well, dozens of smaller republicans, each serving their own populations. I just find the U.S. so extremely different in each area, and the Federal politics poorly representing ANY population.

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Really? How did the North "rape" the South?

Pick up a history book and read. Sherman did not go on a picnic in Georgia. All those carpetbaggers were not pleasant tourists. The north DID "rape" the south. The north also did a number on our national constitution. States rights as prescribed in the bill of rights has been all but done away with. The federal government has become so much more bloated, large and overbearing since the war ended. Heck they even spy on your phone calls and internet now. The north is not some kind of freedom loving paradise, and they were NOT the good guys in the 1860s.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Southern man

Google Carpetbaggers.

I did google carpetbagger. I found some interesting information.

"Many Northern and Southern Republicans shared a modernizing vision of upgrading the Southern economy and society, one that would replace the inefficient Southern plantation regime with railroads, factories and more efficient farming. They actively promoted public schooling and created numerous colleges and universities. The Northerners were especially successful in taking control of Southern railroads, aided by state legislatures. In 1870 Northerners controlled 21% of the South's railroads (by mileage); 19% of the directors were from the North. By 1890 they controlled 88% of the mileage; 47% of the directors were from the North"

The way I see it, the carpetbaggers were not angels, but the last I checked, the Southern economy wasn't running efficiently before the war.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Pick up a history book and read. Sherman did not go on a picnic in Georgia. All those carpetbaggers were not pleasant tourists. The north DID "rape" the south. The north also did a number on our national constitution. States rights as prescribed in the bill of rights has been all but done away with. The federal government has become so much more bloated, large and overbearing since the war ended. Heck they even spy on your phone calls and internet now. The north is not some kind of freedom loving paradise, and they were NOT the good guys in the 1860s.

Really, the north spies on phone calls?

I can name a number of things done in the South, that basically disregarded the Constitution. Among them, putting Blacks under a dictatorship known as Jim Crow. The South was not a freedom-loving place for Blacks.

I never said Sherman or the carpetbaggers were pleasant tourists. However, the South started the war. Southern elites were prepared to go to war as an attempt to keep slavery. The South started the war when they attacked Ft. Sumter. Sherman and the Union finished it.

And the federal government was needed to keep the South in line after the war. After the Reconstruction governments left in 1876, the South went into a deep period of exerting a dictatorship over its Black population.

About those carpetbaggers. "any Northern and Southern Republicans shared a modernizing vision of upgrading the Southern economy and society, one that would replace the inefficient Southern plantation regime with railroads, factories and more efficient farming. They actively promoted public schooling and created numerous colleges and universities. The Northerners were especially successful in taking control of Southern railroads, aided by state legislatures. In 1870 Northerners controlled 21% of the South's railroads (by mileage); 19% of the directors were from the North. By 1890 they controlled 88% of the mileage; 47% of the directors were from the North".

They were no angels, but they did do more than the elites of the South ever did for the Southern economy.

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Well, the way I see it, that is war. The South started that war, the Union finished it. If the South had not attacked Fort Sumter, this would have not happened.

I get tired of "the south started the war". Lincoln did not accept southern independence and was raising an army to invade the south. This was months before Sumpter. War was inevitable, and the fact that the first shots were fired by the CSA at a USA fort does not absolve the USA for starting the war. They were preparing their invasion, they were resupplying a fort in sovereign South Carolina territory in defiance of the South Carolina government. You could just as easily say the north started the war.

[YourChance]

It is endless opposition between North and South. People always divide each other into groups and struggle. It is the nature of humanity. To survive is to fight. The strongest one will win. There is one of divided groups in US. You, Southerns against Northerns. You have to overwhelm you human nature and unite for fighting other groups. You have some different features (language, habits, etc.). I want you to bring your peculiarities through ages; it is because if a community has a lot of different sides of life then it is going to thrive as many features help to solve many ways. One of the reasons of thrive of US is the variety of nations which strengthen ear other’s sides. I do not see any reason to hate any groups of US, but those, which harm very much. On the other hand, it would be better if some type of persons were replaced. The history of humanity has showed us up the whole bunch of examples where one nation was better then another. Some nations were less hard-working. They had plenty of time and have not developed their economy and science. The good climate did not make them to work for surviving. This people have other genes and moral values. You might study the life of animals and would find these processes there. The animals from Zoos are not concerned to survive any second; as a consequence, once they would be released from caves, they would die in the wild world. This processes you might notice anywhere.

[njbiodude]

The South which is arguably the most dependent of any region in the United States on the Federal Government. First due to lower wages and often lower taxation rates there is a lower state tax base and consequently the region is heavily dependent on the Federal Government for repairs to infastructure and the like. In addition, the South has lots of military bases located in the region which pay employees and bolster the economy. So there is no chance it will seceed, unless it wanted to revert back to a third world nation. Money talks.

Now parts of the South (mostly NC, TX, and to some extent Fl) have been rapidly updating their state economies as of late. Although I'm looking into moving to California soon, I currently live in central North Carolina. The local economy here is fairly varied and there is a lot of jobs moving from the North down here. For the most part it is to save money as there are basically no unions down here and employers can get away with paying less. But skilled trades and technical degreed people still can make living wages here. Also the lower salaries do correspond somewhat with lower property tax rates and cheaper real estate. Consequently, a paycut can be somewhat justified. In the case of Texas there actually does appear to be some very good jobs for skilled people in that state and the states stricter housing lending laws (no money down subprime mortgages never took off there) means very affordable housing in many areas. The South is "rising again" in that much of the employment and educated workforce is moving there for weather and jobs.

As a whole much of the South is quite rural. I may be biased as I've never lived in a rural area, but I personally think rural areas in the United States are often boring, impoverished and undereducated regardless of the region. But many Southern cities have made somewhat of a comeback in recent years. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, Augusta, Tampa, and Columbia have fairly vibrant economies. And then there are some beautiful historical cities like Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans, and Miami that draw lots of tourists from all over the world. There are certainly some good universities in the South as well (particularly in NC and Texas) so there is certainly talent. I actually went to undergrad in South Carolina.

I personally HATED the climate in NJ where I grew up as winters were awful. Down here it's certainly better. I used to live in Charleston which was even warmer, and I really enjoyed the weather down there, but the job market was too weak after college to get me to stay.

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

"If it had not been for the Civil War and slavery, the South would probably be the most prosperous region in the nation."

What geographical/cultural advantages lead you to that conclusion? The Northeast/Great Lakes region has more productive land, more freshwater, more iron ore, and less vulnerability to pestilence/disease. Additionally, the Yankees placed a far greater emphasis on learning.

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by danielj72

"War was inevitable, and the fact that the first shots were fired by the CSA at a USA fort does not absolve the USA for starting the war. They were preparing their invasion, they were resupplying a fort in sovereign South Carolina territory in defiance of the South Carolina government."

War was probably inevitable -- Lincoln didn't accept the legitimacy of secession, nor does the Constitution layout a process by which states may leave the union. But the attack on Fort Sumter -- like any military base, property held by the federal government -- gave Lincoln the justification he needed.

[southernnaturelover]

Hmm, I notice the OP hasn't been back since starting this thread.