If the south wanted to secede now would the rest of america have any objections. (enemy, regime)
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.
Yes, sir, I certainly have. I live here, as a matter of fact. We own homes in Louisville and Central Kentucky, and live in Boyle County.
You won't get much of an argument out of me on that issue. I truly and absolutely love Nashville. It's one of my favorite cities in the United States, and living only a few hours' drive from there is a true privilege - and one of the things I'll miss the most when we do move away from here. I've always had a very high opinion of Atlanta, too, despite the horrendous traffic.
But whether you realize it or not, moving your argument in that direction actually points out what I think is one of the most significant problems with the South - once you move away from the small handful of urban pockets of civilization, and get into the rural and semi-rural regions that comprise the vast majority of the South, you start to understand that there really isn't a whole heck of a lot left to work with.
Can you be more specific?
Strong in what way? What values are intact here? I don't see much that really makes a very strong impression on me. There's really not that much about the South that I find impressive, and the values systems and the supposed intangible strengths... well, they totally escape me. From where I sit, it's all purely baseless boasting. Where I live, I frequently hear the phrase "Kentucky Proud" - and my first reaction is invariably "of what?"
What strengths and values do you see represented in the South in sufficient significance to give this region a decisive advantage in a second armed rebellion against the lawful government of our nation? The rampant poverty, the borderline third-world educational systems, the 12th Century barbaric religious fundamentalism? Sorry, but when you're going up against F-16s, B-2s, and brigade after brigade of M1 Abrams tanks, you're going to need something a little more substantive than "Onward, Christian Soldiers."
Uh-huh. Are you aware that this line of thinking is almost a word-for-word reiteration of the brash, incredibly over-confident hubris that emboldened the South to start the first Civil War 155 years ago?
You, uh... do recall how that one turned out for y'all, do you not? It didn't end well, in case your memory is selective in this matter. One out of every three Southern males of fighting age came home dead from that war against the soft, pampered weaklings who supposedly didn't know the loud end of a gun from the end you're supposed to stick against your shoulder.
Aside from the brashness of this particular argument, it's neither particularly logical nor factually correct, unless you cheat by trying to lump the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest states in with the South. "Most of them do not believe in guns?" Per-capita gun ownership in states such as Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and even Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire exceed (and in some cases, vastly exceed) gun ownership in many Southern states. Last time I checked, none of those states fall south of the Mason-Dixon line, but I would say that with gun ownership rates as high as 50+%, it's safe to say the argument that those people "don't believe in guns" is completely false. I'd suggest you do some googling before you take that one to war.
And as for the argument that Southern members of the military would be disinclined to take up arms against fellow southerners, I'll grant that you have a point. But that argument goes both ways - how many of them do you expect to commit outright treason, throw away the Constitution which they have sworn an oath to defend, and take up arms against their own lawfully elected government? Have you ever served in the military, sir? Are you well-acquainted with many military personnel? Because your argument strongly suggests otherwise.
So now it's not just the South, it's basically about 75% of the United States that is on the cusp of rebelling against the government. Have I got that right? I'm sorry, but with all due respect, your reasoning has crossed the line into sheer fantasyland. No offense - I'm sure you're a very nice guy and all that - but I think you're listening to the wrong radio stations.
I do completely agree with you that there is one hell of a lot wrong with this country, and much - if not most - of it has gone past the point of no return, but aside from those dorks who drive around with giant Confederate flags in the beds of their pickup trucks blowing clouds of black diesel smoke to show how courageous, patriotic, and independent they are, I'm really not seeing any support for another disastrous rebellion against the government. I despise Obama just as much as the next man, but it is what it is, and I'm just not seeing a second Civil War on the horizon.
I never said a rebellion was right around the corner, clearly enough of our rights have not been violated yet to trigger that event. Obviously the court edict in June was a big violation of states rights and not one governor even dared to defy that edict. Actually an economic collapse which takes away our high standard of living (one caused by all the socialism by the way) is the most likely thing to bring it all to a head. My post was more intended to make the point that this is not 1865 and that no one should expect that if there ever was a second armed conflict that the same result would come about. I also do really believe that if there was a second rebellion against the government in Washington that it would involve states outside the South. There is a great deal of resentment of the Feds in the west, I have no doubt that some of those states would also be involved. The red/blue map is a great indicator of how it could possibly divide up in such a conflict. I do believe the North would be defeated. You called the government in Washington the "lawful government", well that is up for debate since the constitution has been violated over and over again. Is that government lawful when it does the things it has done?? The British crown was the lawful government in the colonies until they lost the "consent of the governed". The threat of rebellion is a great deterrence to tyranny, and if need be the people must be willing to carry that threat out if necessary. Without that threat of rebellion government will naturally become bigger and more tyrannical with time. That is why we now have wire taps in our phones, drones over our heads, courts dictating to the states and government takeovers of industries like healthcare, banking and auto manufacturing. Our confederate ancestors tried to stand up for states rights, our founding fathers stood up for our right to govern ourselves and sometime in the future (possibly near future) we will need to do it again. If we don't then we will end up living without freedom.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
It wouldn't bother me, but it's not likely that we'll ever see that. It's been tried before. Any state that disagrees with the federal government's policies has the option of giving up the federal subsidies and rules that come with them. Of course, they would have to find a way to make up for that loss of revenue, and even more if they succeed in seceding.
The South is ruining the North, we'd be better off without them..........
This may be too long a read for some..........
MEYERSON: The American low-wage economy is actually the Southern economy. "The American South before the Civil War was the low-wage—actually, the no-wage—anchor of the first global production chain. Today, as the auto and aerospace manufacturers of Europe and East Asia open low-wage assembly plants in Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi, the South has assumed a comparable role once more. ... In fact, now more than then, the South’s efforts to spread its values across America are advancing, as Northern Republicans adopt their Southern counterparts’ antipathy to unions and support for voter suppression, and as workers’ earnings in the North fall toward Southern levels. And now as then, a sectional backlash against Southern norms has emerged that, when combined with the Southern surge, is again creating two nations within one."The American Prospect.
Federal judge rules Virginia can ban Confederate license plates
A federal judge ruled Friday that Virginia can refuse to issue specialty license plates that show the Confederate flag, following a recent Supreme Court ruling that such a ban does not violate the 1st Amendment. U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser said he will issue a written order to address whether Confederate license plates that have already been issued may be recalled by the state. Read more »
The loss of federal revenue would be offset by the tax money that would no longer be going to Washington, DC.
But as a group, the states we're discussing take more out of the "pool" than they're paying in. Significantly more. Mississippi, for example, takes more than twice as much tax money out of the federal coffers than they pay in taxes. If Mississippi wants to secede from the Union and stop leaching off the Yankee states that actually pay more taxes than they suck out of the rest of the country, that's fine. But they're sure as heck not going to offset anything; all they'd be doing is basically taking themselves off of welfare and leaving more money for the parts of the country that actually pay their own way.
You know, it's not only ironic, it's downright hilarious. The states that whine the most about "big government" stealing all their money with high taxes and redistributing it to the lazy welfare-dependent Yankee socialists are the biggest welfare queens in the country. They suck more out of the system than they pay in, and whine about being overtaxed - hell, they basically don't actually pay any taxes at all; they just take the money that's paid in by the "socialists" they say they can't wait to get rid of.
Well, hell, go then - but like I asked before (and nobody's even tried to answer yet) if y'all want to leave the Union, who do you think is going to pay for your welfare? Do you think Mexico is going to pick up the bill or something? Funny how Rush Limbaugh always leaves that part of the equation out of his frothmouthed rantings and ravings. Maybe if the educational systems in so many of the Southern states weren't so dysfunctional, people would be able to figure it out for themselves, but then again... well, that would require them actually wanting to do the math, and be willing to accept the reality of the answers. So perhaps it's asking too much after all.
I never said a rebellion was right around the corner, clearly enough of our rights have not been violated yet to trigger that event. Obviously the court edict in June was a big violation of states rights and not one governor even dared to defy that edict.
I think you'd be surprised at how close I am to agreeing with many of your positions, and as a matter of fact that is one of them where I think we could have a pretty interesting discussion. But unfortunately, both time limitations and the structure of the "Great Debates" discussion format would make it difficult to explore those tangential sidetracks. I think that for the most part we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and perhaps save some of the substantive issues for a later date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
If we don't then we will end up living without freedom.
I trimmed a lot out of your post for the sake of brevity, but left this in because I think much of the discussion hinges around this issue.
The problem (as I see it) is this - what freedom? We are already living without freedom.
I know that in and of itself, that's a very brash overstatement, but there's a considerable degree of truth within it. Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and a score of their confederates are sitting on a cloud holding their faces in their hands, looking down in complete disgust, shaking their heads, and asking one another, "How in the name of God did those idiots manage to get this so completely, spectacularly wrong?"
I consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America to be two of the most sacred documents ever crafted by human hands, quite possibly the very pinnacle of human social evolution - but in the context of human history, I think they will be remembered as aberrations, just a brief moment in history, a courageous and noble attempt that never managed to fully meet its potential. There's still a lot of good in this country, but at this point in history it bears very little substantive resemblance to what the Founding Fathers had in mind and what they risked their lives to create and to leave behind for us. There is not a single politician or public figure in this country today who is fit to carry the shoes of those men, and I would be surprised if I ever see another one in my lifetime.
You seem to still love this country, and I respect that. I once did myself, very much - but it's been so long since I felt that way, I honestly can't recall when it was or why I felt that way. I don't hate it, but I certainly don't love it anymore. It's not much more to me anymore than a place on a map, and the biggest reason I still live here is because it's where I happen to have been born. If I'd been born someplace else, I'd probably live there instead; I might like it more, I might like it less... who knows? I don't think much about it anymore. This is just where I happen to live.
And I believe there are quite a lot of people living here who feel pretty much the same thing I do for America - ambivalence, antipathy, and not much hope for the future. And I agree that there are many people, in many parts of the country, who are beyond ambivalent and apathetic - they are so disgusted with the direction this country took, they would be quite happy to see their part of the country secede from the rest.
But I don't believe it will ever happen, because unlike the mid-19th Century, there is no common unifying cause for enough of them to rally around and take such a huge step. They're angry - in many cases, extremely angry - about the state of the country, and dissatisfied with the direction it has taken (and is continuing to take), but not enough of them agree on exactly what it is they're most angry about. The West, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Deep South, the Southeast... any of those regions have a number of citizens who would be quite happy to leave the Union, and possibly willing to die to make that happen, but what then?
How are the middle-aged and elderly men and women from the seceding states going to feel when they realize that every penny they have spent their entire lives paying into Social Security and Medicare is now gone forever? How are they going to feel when they realize that the tremendous tax subsidies (in some cases, 2 dollars received for every dollar paid in) that they get back from the federal government are over, and their states are now going to have to find some way to pay their own way?
For that matter, how many of them even realize it? In the 4 years I've been living in Kentucky, I have yet to meet a native Kentuckian who doesn't think I'm making up some outrageous lie when I tell them that; for some reason they are utterly convinced that they are somehow supporting tens of millions of lazy "socialists" (and good luck getting a coherent explanation of what that term even means) who spend their entire day sitting around drinking up their welfare checks in those Yankee blue states up north. How do you think they're going to feel when they realize they're being asked to die for the privilege of giving up all that free Yankee money?
Do you think people in the South are willing to die for water rights in the Western states?
Are the people in Illinois prepared to risk their lives - and the lives of their loved ones - to help install a national government that wants to teach their children that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that every human being on the planet is a direct descendant of a 500-year old man and his three sons; and every creature that walks, swims, or flies a direct descendant of the pairs of animals he and his family somehow jammed into a big boat?
Are the people in the Midwest willing to go to war over the South's rabid religious hatred for gay marriage?
Are the Catholics, Hindus, and moderate christians of Arizona and New Mexico going to tolerate a national government dominated by the primitive 12-Century religious principles of Kentucky and Mississippi?
It may sound as though I'm being frivolous, but these are all very real and very important questions that are going to be asked by the people who will be asked to risk their lives to go to war, and some of them are going to want serious answers when they're trying to decide whether they're willing to put their lives and the lives of their families at risk. There may be a lot of people who agree that they would rather not be a part of the present-day United States anymore, but that's the easy part - getting them to agree on what kind of country they're all willing to work together, fight together, and die together in order to build is a very, very different matter. That question is not a quick or easy one to answer at all.
And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they are willing. Then what? What does the new government look like? Who's in charge?
Even if, by some tremendous miracle, they were able to win, what would they accomplish besides simply destroying the country? What comes after the revolution, to make the new country a better one than what it replaces it? Can you answer that, because I really don't see it. To me, the most likely outcome seems to be that half of the "victors" would immediately go to war with the other half to determine where the country goes from there, because they are not going to agree peacefully. The rebellion - even if it were successful - would not be the end of the conflict, but the beginning.
Keep in mind what Vladimir Putin said only a year ago about the collapse of the USSR - "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the major geopolitical catastrophe of the century." The destruction of the United States by a successful war of secession would make the collapse of the Soviet Union look like little more than the redrawing of a few congressional voting districts. It would mean the serious degradation (if not the outright end) of the United States as the pre-eminent military, cultural, and economic force it represents in today's world. Is that what you want? Well, then go get 'em.
All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. Damned careful. Because if it ever does happen, I do not believe it is going to turn out the way you think it is.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 08-02-2015 at 01:24 AM..
I think you'd be surprised at how close I am to agreeing with many of your positions, and as a matter of fact that is one of them where I think we could have a pretty interesting discussion. But unfortunately, both time limitations and the structure of the "Great Debates" discussion format would make it difficult to explore those tangential sidetracks. I think that for the most part we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and perhaps save some of the substantive issues for a later date.
I trimmed a lot out of your post for the sake of brevity, but left this in because I think much of the discussion hinges around this issue.
The problem (as I see it) is this - what freedom? We are already living without freedom.
I know that in and of itself, that's a very brash overstatement, but there's a considerable degree of truth within it. Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and a score of their confederates are sitting on a cloud holding their faces in their hands, looking down in complete disgust, shaking their heads, and asking one another, "How in the name of God did those idiots manage to get this so completely, spectacularly wrong?"
I consider the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America to be two of the most sacred documents ever crafted by human hands, quite possibly the very pinnacle of human social evolution - but in the context of human history, I think they will be remembered as aberrations, just a brief moment in history, a courageous and noble attempt that never managed to fully meet its potential. There's still a lot of good in this country, but at this point in history it bears very little substantive resemblance to what the Founding Fathers had in mind and what they risked their lives to create and to leave behind for us. There is not a single politician or public figure in this country today who is fit to carry the shoes of those men, and I would be surprised if I ever see another one in my lifetime.
You seem to still love this country, and I respect that. I once did myself, very much - but it's been so long since I felt that way, I honestly can't recall when it was or why I felt that way. I don't hate it, but I certainly don't love it anymore. It's not much more to me anymore than a place on a map, and the biggest reason I still live here is because it's where I happen to have been born. If I'd been born someplace else, I'd probably live there instead; I might like it more, I might like it less... who knows? I don't think much about it anymore. This is just where I happen to live.
And I believe there are quite a lot of people living here who feel pretty much the same thing I do for America - ambivalence, antipathy, and not much hope for the future. And I agree that there are many people, in many parts of the country, who are beyond ambivalent and apathetic - they are so disgusted with the direction this country took, they would be quite happy to see their part of the country secede from the rest.
But I don't believe it will ever happen, because unlike the mid-19th Century, there is no common unifying cause for enough of them to rally around and take such a huge step. They're angry - in many cases, extremely angry - about the state of the country, and dissatisfied with the direction it has taken (and is continuing to take), but not enough of them agree on exactly what it is they're most angry about. The West, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Deep South, the Southeast... any of those regions have a number of citizens who would be quite happy to leave the Union, and possibly willing to die to make that happen, but what then?
How are the middle-aged and elderly men and women from the seceding states going to feel when they realize that every penny they have spent their entire lives paying into Social Security and Medicare is now gone forever? How are they going to feel when they realize that the tremendous tax subsidies (in some cases, 2 dollars received for every dollar paid in) that they get back from the federal government are over, and their states are now going to have to find some way to pay their own way?
For that matter, how many of them even realize it? In the 4 years I've been living in Kentucky, I have yet to meet a native Kentuckian who doesn't think I'm making up some outrageous lie when I tell them that; for some reason they are utterly convinced that they are somehow supporting tens of millions of lazy "socialists" (and good luck getting a coherent explanation of what that term even means) who spend their entire day sitting around drinking up their welfare checks in those Yankee blue states up north. How do you think they're going to feel when they realize they're being asked to die for the privilege of giving up all that free Yankee money?
Do you think people in the South are willing to die for water rights in the Western states?
Are the people in Illinois prepared to risk their lives - and the lives of their loved ones - to help install a national government that wants to teach their children that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that every human being on the planet is a direct descendant of a 500-year old man and his three sons; and every creature that walks, swims, or flies a direct descendant of the pairs of animals he and his family somehow jammed into a big boat?
Are the people in the Midwest willing to go to war over the South's rabid religious hatred for gay marriage?
Are the Catholics, Hindus, and moderate christians of Arizona and New Mexico going to tolerate a national government dominated by the primitive 12-Century religious principles of Kentucky and Mississippi?
It may sound as though I'm being frivolous, but these are all very real and very important questions that are going to be asked by the people who will be asked to risk their lives to go to war, and some of them are going to want serious answers when they're trying to decide whether they're willing to put their lives and the lives of their families at risk. There may be a lot of people who agree that they would rather not be a part of the present-day United States anymore, but that's the easy part - getting them to agree on what kind of country they're all willing to work together, fight together, and die together in order to build is a very, very different matter. That question is not a quick or easy one to answer at all.
And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they are willing. Then what? What does the new government look like? Who's in charge?
Even if, by some tremendous miracle, they were able to win, what would they accomplish besides simply destroying the country? What comes after the revolution, to make the new country a better one than what it replaces it? Can you answer that, because I really don't see it. To me, the most likely outcome seems to be that half of the "victors" would immediately go to war with the other half to determine where the country goes from there, because they are not going to agree peacefully. The rebellion - even if it were successful - would not be the end of the conflict, but the beginning.
Keep in mind what Vladimir Putin said only a year ago about the collapse of the USSR - "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the major geopolitical catastrophe of the century." The destruction of the United States by a successful war of secession would make the collapse of the Soviet Union look like little more than the redrawing of a few congressional voting districts. It would mean the serious degradation (if not the outright end) of the United States as the pre-eminent military, cultural, and economic force it represents in today's world. Is that what you want? Well, then go get 'em.
All I can say is, be careful what you wish for. Damned careful. Because if it ever does happen, I do not believe it is going to turn out the way you think it is.
I do agree with a good portion of this well thought out post. First I want to be clear that I don't want this nation to come to the point were rebellion is the only option, however I do fear for our future at this point whether there is a rebellion or not. As far as your concerns about a successor government for the new nation after a successful rebellion you have an excellent point. The idea that the revolution could end in victory only to have it destroyed by infighting among the victors is a terrible thought. You have hit on a reality about this nation that has always been true, we are a VERY diverse nation with varying value systems and ideas about politics. Our founding fathers knew this and our government was designed to respect this fact.
The articles of Confederation gave nearly all the powers to the states, as this is what the states wanted at the time. However it soon became clear that this federal government was too weak to be useful so the current constitution was written and adopted. Even though the federal government was strengthened, still the fear of federal tyranny led our founding fathers to give the states more of the power. The Federal government power was defined by this new constitution and it really should only have the power to coin money, conduct foreign policy, raise an army and regulate interstate commerce. The rest of the power resides with the states. This was done in order to make our union possible, allowing this very diverse nation to be one.
I agree with you that there is no modern politician that could even be considered to be the equal of any of the founding fathers. That is part of the reason we are in the position we are now. I believe the founding fathers were political geniuses, they gave us a very workable system that really could only fail if we did not follow it. The tenth amendment or "states rights" is a perfect example. Each state should have the right to pass the laws that reflect its values, support its economy etc. That means a state like Massachusetts could pass gay marriage laws, institute socialist policies, welfare programs and single payer healthcare and at the same time Alabama could have laws that reflect its conservative religious value system. People in Alabama should have no right to dictate to those in New England about their laws, nor should the New Englander do the same to the residents of Southern states or Western states. These opposing systems could exist in the same union, and we could "live and let live" for lack of a better phrase.
What has gone wrong?? Larger states with more left wing, blue state values and politics have a larger population and have won election after election in our national government. They have stacked the courts and taken over the government with both legislative action and court edict. Their agenda has been forced upon the people of the conservative states for decades now, and as we have seen it has gotten much worse in recent years. This fuels anger and division, a division that I believe is rising to 1850s levels. If our economy melts down and people end up in a position where they have less to lose I do believe there is a possibility of something happening. What should be done??? We should respect our constitution and allow the states the power they are entitled too. This is the only way we can guarantee that we will have a peaceful happy union. Whenever people are ruled by others from far away, and especially when another value system is forced upon them by the power of government there is a possibility of rebellion. At this point the federal government will not just give up the power so state governors should stand up and tell them NO. Nullification is not a new idea in this nation and I believe it should be tried. It is a great way to challenge federal power without secession. This method could be used to restore the constitutionally intended balance of power between state and federal government. The risk however is that the feds would attempt to use force in order to keep its power. That is when you enter the crazy world of secession, rebellion and civil war. I honestly think that would not happen however, I believe the constitution is on the side of states rights and the people will see that when its fully examined. A new Nullification crises is just what this nation needs to put us back on the straight and narrow.
But as a group, the states we're discussing take more out of the "pool" than they're paying in. Significantly more. Mississippi, for example, takes more than twice as much tax money out of the federal coffers than they pay in taxes. If Mississippi wants to secede from the Union and stop leaching off the Yankee states that actually pay more taxes than they suck out of the rest of the country, that's fine. But they're sure as heck not going to offset anything; all they'd be doing is basically taking themselves off of welfare and leaving more money for the parts of the country that actually pay their own way.
So what's the downside?
You're undermining your own argument when you point out that MS will get her independence and the rest of the states will no longer bear the burden of supporting MS. It's a win-win for everybody!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
Maybe if the educational systems in so many of the Southern states weren't so dysfunctional
Without the boot-heels of the Supreme Court and the Dept. of Education / No Child Left Behind on their throats, they just might be able to improve themselves well beyond their current states.
Of course, I'm sure that you wouldn't make a comment like that unless all the Northern, Midwestern, Southwestern, PNW, and DC schools were in tip-top shape.
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.
