Skip to comments.Does this libtard have a point? Better Off without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession
Posted on 08/21/2012 8:12:12 AM PDT by teflon9
click here to read article
Opps.... Red States, Blue States, who tags us Red when the
blues are the commies?
Meh. Let them create a new Austin. It’s one of those “state of mind” kind of places, anyway. Better to excise all the cancer.
We could have thrown the commies out in the 50s, but no. We stood down. We wouldn’t be where we are today if we had. We should have loaded them up in a boat & shipped them off to Stalingrad.
I am offended by the comment wrt “racist, haters”. Experience has taught me that those who cry “raaacist” & “hater” are actually the racist haters, themselves.
Instead of advocating for the genocide of the White Race, maybe you should either consider moving northward or Wake Up.
One thing is sure—we need to Reboot the USA—Start to scrap off the barnacles—and all the regulations—Powerful Lobbies and corrupt unions. Start over at some point—Dump PC and Affirmative Action, welfare and corruption in high places—weed out the media and start fresh.
I don’t think Texas would take kindly to this guy’s idea. I kinda get a giggle out of thinking how Texas would react to his suggestion.
These northen liberals always seem to think they'll get to keep Texas in a north/south split. I have got news for you leftdolts: Texas would go with the South. Period. Just ask most Texans. And trying to force the issue woulx be a baaad idea...
that would we be sweet
I totally agree with you on Sherman. He was a low down terrorist scoundrel. When US troops marched through Nazi Germany we didn’t treat the German civilians the way Sherman treated Southern civilians. His men stole and/or destoryed private property, shot civilians, raped women (both black and white) and burned towns, houses, barns, fields, churches and libraries.
(1) I double dog dare you to go to Dallas or Atlanta and run your mouth about Sherman. Any “Johnny Reb” as you disparagingly referred to Southeners would kick your butt. Sherman was a butcher who slaughtered mostly elderly, women, and children. But you revere him? Revolting.
(2) This isn’t 1861. Your assumption that a North/South conflict would look anything like it did then shows a complete lack of understanding of the factors involved in such conflicts.
(3) Where do most of the troops come from now? Where is most of the industrial base? Just those two factors alone are completely opposite of what they were in 1861.
(4) If push came to shove, Texas would just turn off most of the West Coast — they have an isolated power grid, and a huge chunk California’s power comes from Texas. Shortly after that, most of the rest of the country’s interconnected power grids would collapse. Then the scum-infested urban cesspools in the North would burn themselves down in about 2 weeks. Max. End of conflict.
Finally, I’d rather see America stay a unified Constitutional America. But the blather and delusion that any conflict (which will be started by the North if it comes - see this artlicle and other violent rhetoric spewing from the left just today) would be anything like the last go-around is just that — blather and delusion.
Ooops, I pasted the wrong link. Try this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2921075/posts?page=60#60
A better alternate is to purge the North east. They don’t like America, they like Europe. All the states north and east and including New York should be purged and possibly ceded to an independent Quebec
I understand the fundamental point you are making about the ideological divide known to exist between liberal urban metropolitan centers and conservative suburban and rural areas. Maybe we would have to sort out the who-belongs-to-who issue at the county level. (Which, based on the pattern of the last several Presidential elections, would probably make Red Nation even larger territorially.)
This approach, of course, would make present state borders obsolete. It would also require state secession conventions agreeing to divide up the state territory in this manner. This is pretty unlikely as politicians understand that unsupported urban centers are fundamentally resource-less traps. Just as with the original Confederacy, secession would probably be an all-or-nothing proposition at the state level.
If you have read the Articles of Confederation (and I assume you have), you already know how inadequate they were and why, after a decade of trying, the US political class found it easier to simply abandoned them as a failing effort and start over from scratch with the Constitution. This is an important point to remember when hearing or reading someone waxing eloquent about the “genius” of the Founding Fathers; they got the organization of the national government badly wrong the first time around. In many respects, that failure was an important step to the success and longevity that the subsequent government has enjoyed.
Even then, we still had a very bloody civil war.
I would hope that, if it came to it, the new Red Nation would simply adopt a close version of the Constitution of the United States as its own constitution.
Given their proclivities, we know that the subsequent Blue Nation constitution, rather than adhering to the existing document, would probably read more like some liberal’s fascist wet dream for proletarian government.
And this is a problem, why?
We will, of course, want to welcome into the New Confederacy, the new states of South Illinois (everything but Chicago-land), East California (toss out the blue cities along the coast), and West Pennsylvania (probably the last will require a messy forced-exchange of populations to get the 'Rat enclave out of the Pittsburgh area and resettle some conservatives who want to flee the Northeast relatively close to home).
Don't be too sure. In the very unlikely event that the country splits up, it's really going to split up. If the South decides to leave, the Midwest and West may go out on their own, but they're not going to become a tail for the South (or the East or West Coast) to wag.
Anytime anyone mentions that lowlife sherman, its like a 4 foot flame burning my arse. I will not suffer for long the fools that bring him as some hero.
There were a lot of “less than honorable” things on both sides, but sherman’s actions were unnecessary and put a blight on any honor on those who allowed and encouraged him to do commit those crimes against humanity.
“It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.”
-—Robert E. Lee
Sherman was fond of it. Grant was too drunk to know.
Exactly. We don’t praise “bad guys” like the Germans and Soviets when they practiced scortched earth and burned countless villages to the ground; it’s hypocritical to praise Sherman for the same thing because he “saved the Union.”
The split in the US is largely urban-rural and is found in most every state. But if the US is torn asunder, where should a Jewish boy from New York move?
We have enough problems in the conservative movement without discussing the “merits” of secession.
To even raise that issue waves a red flag in front of a liberal bull.
I realize this is a liberal who raised the issue of whether secession would be a good idea, but some of us are taking the bait. That is not wise.
We all know there is virtually no chance of a secession happening without radical changes in the current political conditions. There is no point in discussing things that have virtually no chance of happening, especially when the discussion can get picked up by others as “proof” of conservatives being neo-Confederates.
This war was lost a hundred and fifty years ago. Let's move on and do what we can to fix the America we still have, not try to revive a Confederacy that failed.