Skip to comments.Secession reconsidered
Posted on 12/19/2004 9:17:32 AM PST by Kitten Festival
We conservatives certainly missed a great opportunity back in November just after the election. Along with the usual liberal excuse-fest and tone-deaf mystification over values voters came something entirely new this year talk of secession. Yes, the bitterly divided nation had elected the president in a noticeably geographical pattern and the coastal elites were so angry with their landlocked brethren as to momentarily consider the idea of leaving the Union. Perhaps theyd forgotten that this had been tried before?
Now waging war over the abolition of slavery surely trumps waging war to redefine marriage, but this notion of seceding does serve to highlight the modern elites understanding of Jeffersons light or transient causes as described in the Declaration. We may no longer be a serious people.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Without Democrats, I would miss that ecstatic glee that happens when they lose.
"Momentarily consider secession..."
Doesn't that recall the image of the 5-year-old and her teddy bear leaving the house for good?
My grandparents fled 'old Europe' just before WW1 to avoid being slaughtered. They came here with the clothes on their backs to be greeted by hey polack! or you dirty wop!
They MADE something out of nothing and all their grandchildren got their degrees and now live 'The American Dream'.
I ain't seceding ANYTHING!
Let THEM get the hell out!
Let THEM get the hell out!
Right -- go to Canada, go to Mexico, go to France. This is our Country and there are plenty Republicans and Conservative Democrats living in those 'blue' states.
The largest number of Democrats are living in the largest cities in the USofA. Those same cities have the most crime, too. Wonder if there's a connection.
What the heck is she talking about when she says 'a war for the abolition of slavery'????
Here's what the yankee Congress said in the spring of 1861, AFTER the Confederacy was formed:
On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. (emphasis added).
And the official Declaration of War, UNANIMOUSLY approved by the US Congress, and signed by Lincoln, stated:
Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought
In othere words, the war had NOTHING to do with slavery, according to the United States government in 1861.
There is a line that has been drawn, between the "Bible Belt" South, and the "Secular-Humanist" North.
This time, the lines have been drawn upon "Spirtual issues". Perhaps the time has come for a "new secession". Those folks have a very different vision of what the "Free Republic" should look like, based upon geography.
Perhaps, Michael Moore is right. We may need two Nations, the "United States of Canada" in the North, and "Jesusland, in Dixie".
Guess which side of the Patomac River I live on.
For Southern Independence
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.