Posted on 03/31/2010 6:36:03 AM PDT by kingattax
After 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?
Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways.
Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?
Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah.
We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
I think you have that backwards the red states are the ones that are the welfare recipients of government largess. That is they get back more than they pay into the government coffers.
“Twenty one of the thirty three states who get back more than the taxpayers in those states pay in are also states who voted for John McCain in 2008. In effect, the wealthier Blue states are subsidizing poorer, more rural Red states...much as urban counties usually subsidize rural counties on the state tax level.”
In reality, the benefit of that payroll is not to the red state, but to the national security enjoyed by everyone.
Friends, it boils down to a couple of very straightforward questions: Who will you serve? To whom will you submit?
For those of us who took an oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the answer is also straightforward. Surrender is not an option.
I was n’t thinking of protection I was thinking of expected Texas to make up for the shortfalls in revenue of those other wuthless red welfare states that secede with you. :)
Who would you need protecting from anyway?
Secession may not be legal, but that obviously doesn’t mean that in certain cases it is not right, moral and necessary. I’m certain that the British crown did not deem the American rebellion as a legal means of separation.
We do have a way to go. Court challenges, state efforts, and federal elections can promote a re-union and healing. If those things fail a Constitutional convention may have to take place.
However, if we are repulsed at every turn, tyranny will be cemented in place by the one-party dictatorial socialist state. The S-word will then mean the R-word. BTW, that’s not recession.
It *wasn’t* about slavery. Lincoln didn’t even make slavery an issue until after the battle of Antietam.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html
Think about it. The southern states had left, we’d been at war for a year and a half, THEN slavery became the hot topic to keep up northern sentiment.
As far as your liberal profs go: A broken clock is right twice a day.
But if you secede then some fortunate Blue state will benefit and the mainly southern states would have to make up for the loss with what?
“...In reality, the benefit of that payroll is not to the red state, but to the national security enjoyed by everyone.
But if you secede then some fortunate Blue state will benefit and the mainly southern states would have to make up for the loss with what?
I am all for it. Let the States leave the union hanging in the wind and form a new one.
Sounds like “Desert Freedom” is a new member of the South hating contingent and PC crew here on FR. Obviously Publik Skool educated and has the attitude of a 16 year old.
“A secession would not be polite and non-violent.”
Your’re right, but it is better than slavery and just who is the “union” anyway? The federal government and they ain’t got the balls to stop us.
“And the fact that this desire suddenly manifested itself with the election of a President opposed to the expansion of slavery was purely coincidental, right? “
If there were true, then why was there a provision in the Confederate’s constitution outlawing the importing of slaves?
The South was being bent over by Washington for export taxes. The more populous northern states were crushing them in congress on one small issue after another.
The Civil War was caused by *unjust taxes*, not slavery.
Desert Freedom - member since 3/21/10 - Looks like we may have another DU Troll!
I don’t think that succession ,if it does occur, will happen all at once and everywhere. In some cases, succession is impractical because of geographic reasons. Red counties in Illinois and New York are too close to blue power bases.
Foreign policy events could actually precipitate events. Alaska is geographically isolated and very difficult to control militarily because of the size and weather. In addition, its citizens are very much rooted in individualism and self sufficiency like no other place in the union. Perhaps, the Chinese would covertly fund an insurrection movement to get an oil deal. The Russians seem to have designs on Alaska and may wish to gain a client state.
If the US military then became bogged down in Alaska, Texas and the inter-mountain West may be the next to secede. After that, the whole union would unravel.
I’m not predicting this. But I could have never imagined what’s going on right now just a few years ago.
“Why did the South want to be free from Northern authority? What was the main problem with the North?”
Congress had levied a crushing export tax on goods produced in the South. That was the main issue.
Read it again. Article 1, section 9, clause 1: "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden..."
Rather than forbid it, the constitution specifically protects slave imports.
The South was being bent over by Washington for export taxes. The more populous northern states were crushing them in congress on one small issue after another.
Export taxes? Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." What were these export taxes and what where they placed on?
The Civil War was caused by *unjust taxes*, not slavery.
Nonsense.
“Imagine relying on Texas to look after you all - good look with that.”
Wow. And *that* is the most telling statement I’ve read all day.
In America, we’re supposed to look after *ourselves*. Not look to the government, any government, to take care of us.
Are you sure you’re on the right board?
You could have all the unemployed soldiers and there would be still be enough soldiers from the blue states and young people to rebuild the military in a fortunate blue state with all the dollars lost to the southern seceding states.
It is not going to happen but just a thought.
Which is precisely what we're seeing today from the other side.
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.