(11-11-2012 08:10 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:25 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  These sorts of secession-jokes crop up after every election. I know that in December 2004 there was some talk -- not completely serious but not completely in jest, either -- of reviving the Republic of Vermont. A group of people actually sponsored some sort of discussion-conference in Burlington VT and it got polite coverage in the leftwing media (The Nation, for example)

Politically, secession is (of course) a moot point so I rarely participate in these discussions, but just for the record I will readily admit that I feel no sense of kinship or connection with "Blue States" at all, and if there really were some practical way to split America in half -- the "D+" areas in "their" half and the "R+" areas in "our" half, I would gladly agree to it. I think it would be good for "Blues", good for "Reds" and probably good for the rest of the world, too.

To me, allowing the split of this country would be a betrayal of my relatives who split blood at Shiloh, and suffered through Andersonville, and miraculously survived the Sultana to preserve this Union. I could never support it and would fight any effort to destroy it. Whether it be politically or, as a last resort, with my life.

Violence of the past is not an excuse. I fully understand Lincolns mindset of union preservation regardless of whether I agree with it or not. It was a different time. I can't imagine violent civil war again over this issue.
I lost a bunch of ancestors in the war also. I really have no deep feelings about their deaths other than regret that the war happened in the first place.

I understand your point, but I think you misread what would happen. Those states would not go quietly into the night.

I don't understand the mindset to force States to remain in the Union. It's a voluntary association. Why hold a gun to a state's head and force them to stay if they want independence? I reject forcing tyranny on any State or people. If they want self-governance, that's their right.

As far as Lincoln, he was a tyrant. It's laughable that he's made into a hero by historians, but the winning side does write history. I wonder if America had lost its war for independence if they'd be talking about how great King George was lol. Maybe they'd make a movie about him and how he had no choice but to use violence to keep America in the British "union" lol.


And as a bit of an aside, does anyone else find it funny that it's always the South that wants independence? It's never the North. The north wants to force the South to stay, not the other way around. That's really telling.

WHY IS THE BIG BAD NORTH ALWAYS PICKING ON ME?-----THE SOUTH

(11-09-2012 01:20 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  HOLY SHNITKE's I just googled Sultana. What a tragedy. Never heard of it.

yup. A lot of men who just spent years in a living hell(Andersonville) died that night.

That was luck being on the deck. Then many of us would not be here today if not for some luck on the part of our ancestors. I was watching something about the Sultana not long ago on the military or history channel – some think it was sabotage versus just an accident.

I am a member of the SCV, lot of casualties on my dad’s side of the family in the south (ancestory.com helped me research some stories passed down, and find new ones). I will agree that Andersonville sucked, but the Yankee prisoners were given the same rations as the southern troops. The south was starving. The death rate of confederates in Yankee prisons was much higher. But the victors do write the history books.

In the long term the country is stronger today because we are not Balkanized. Just the fact that we can discuss this sets us apart form many countries. If someone does not like it here they are free to leave.

(11-09-2012 07:24 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Can those of us who are Libertarian and disagree with red and blue get one of the smaller states?

I thought you Big-L ibertarians were trying to do a run on New Hampshire?

(11-11-2012 07:30 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 07:24 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Can those of us who are Libertarian and disagree with red and blue get one of the smaller states?

I thought you Big-L ibertarians were trying to do a run on New Hampshire?

As a member of the FSP...I can tell you one of the reasons it was picked was that shares a border with Canada and the Atlantic Ocean. The FSP considered location for Secession as one of many criteria for it movement. The FSP is making slow and steady progress in gaining seats in the NH House. Free Staters are blocking the hell out everything that they consider a waste of money and infringement upon civil liberties. You can carry a sidearm right into the State House.

(11-11-2012 08:10 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:25 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  These sorts of secession-jokes crop up after every election. I know that in December 2004 there was some talk -- not completely serious but not completely in jest, either -- of reviving the Republic of Vermont. A group of people actually sponsored some sort of discussion-conference in Burlington VT and it got polite coverage in the leftwing media (The Nation, for example)

Politically, secession is (of course) a moot point so I rarely participate in these discussions, but just for the record I will readily admit that I feel no sense of kinship or connection with "Blue States" at all, and if there really were some practical way to split America in half -- the "D+" areas in "their" half and the "R+" areas in "our" half, I would gladly agree to it. I think it would be good for "Blues", good for "Reds" and probably good for the rest of the world, too.

To me, allowing the split of this country would be a betrayal of my relatives who split blood at Shiloh, and suffered through Andersonville, and miraculously survived the Sultana to preserve this Union. I could never support it and would fight any effort to destroy it. Whether it be politically or, as a last resort, with my life.

Violence of the past is not an excuse. I fully understand Lincolns mindset of union preservation regardless of whether I agree with it or not. It was a different time. I can't imagine violent civil war again over this issue.
I lost a bunch of ancestors in the war also. I really have no deep feelings about their deaths other than regret that the war happened in the first place.

I understand your point, but I think you misread what would happen. Those states would not go quietly into the night.

I don't understand the mindset to force States to remain in the Union. It's a voluntary association. Why hold a gun to a state's head and force them to stay if they want independence? I reject forcing tyranny on any State or people. If they want self-governance, that's their right.

As far as Lincoln, he was a tyrant. It's laughable that he's made into a hero by historians, but the winning side does write history. I wonder if America had lost its war for independence if they'd be talking about how great King George was lol. Maybe they'd make a movie about him and how he had no choice but to use violence to keep America in the British "union" lol.


And as a bit of an aside, does anyone else find it funny that it's always the South that wants independence? It's never the North. The north wants to force the South to stay, not the other way around. That's really telling.

My sentiments on the issue.

(11-11-2012 07:56 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 08:10 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:25 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  To me, allowing the split of this country would be a betrayal of my relatives who split blood at Shiloh, and suffered through Andersonville, and miraculously survived the Sultana to preserve this Union. I could never support it and would fight any effort to destroy it. Whether it be politically or, as a last resort, with my life.

Violence of the past is not an excuse. I fully understand Lincolns mindset of union preservation regardless of whether I agree with it or not. It was a different time. I can't imagine violent civil war again over this issue.
I lost a bunch of ancestors in the war also. I really have no deep feelings about their deaths other than regret that the war happened in the first place.

I understand your point, but I think you misread what would happen. Those states would not go quietly into the night.

I don't understand the mindset to force States to remain in the Union. It's a voluntary association. Why hold a gun to a state's head and force them to stay if they want independence? I reject forcing tyranny on any State or people. If they want self-governance, that's their right.

As far as Lincoln, he was a tyrant. It's laughable that he's made into a hero by historians, but the winning side does write history. I wonder if America had lost its war for independence if they'd be talking about how great King George was lol. Maybe they'd make a movie about him and how he had no choice but to use violence to keep America in the British "union" lol.


And as a bit of an aside, does anyone else find it funny that it's always the South that wants independence? It's never the North. The north wants to force the South to stay, not the other way around. That's really telling.

My sentiments on the issue.

It was a different time...I understand both sides of this issue and Lincolns' mentality. I believe slavery would have ended in America just as it did other places without having to resort to war...but...The South F'd up and used violence. They gave Lincoln an excuse for war and he took it. I can't believe ANY issue today that could lead to secession would resort in violent civil war again. No one would support that on either side.

(11-11-2012 08:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 07:56 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 08:10 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Violence of the past is not an excuse. I fully understand Lincolns mindset of union preservation regardless of whether I agree with it or not. It was a different time. I can't imagine violent civil war again over this issue.
I lost a bunch of ancestors in the war also. I really have no deep feelings about their deaths other than regret that the war happened in the first place.

I understand your point, but I think you misread what would happen. Those states would not go quietly into the night.

I don't understand the mindset to force States to remain in the Union. It's a voluntary association. Why hold a gun to a state's head and force them to stay if they want independence? I reject forcing tyranny on any State or people. If they want self-governance, that's their right.

As far as Lincoln, he was a tyrant. It's laughable that he's made into a hero by historians, but the winning side does write history. I wonder if America had lost its war for independence if they'd be talking about how great King George was lol. Maybe they'd make a movie about him and how he had no choice but to use violence to keep America in the British "union" lol.


And as a bit of an aside, does anyone else find it funny that it's always the South that wants independence? It's never the North. The north wants to force the South to stay, not the other way around. That's really telling.

My sentiments on the issue.

It was a different time...I understand both sides of this issue and Lincolns' mentality. I believe slavery would have ended in America just as it did other places without having to resort to war...but...The South F'd up and used violence. They gave Lincoln an excuse for war and he took it. I can't believe ANY issue today that could lead to secession would resort in violent civil war again. No one would support that on either side.

Agreed, I don't think there would be a civil war again over secession. I do worry about violent responses from oppressive government though. The US isn't just going to let a State leave. There would be riots and protests and the heavy hand of government. Eventually, I think civil disobedience would achieve the goal of independence.

(11-12-2012 08:22 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 08:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 07:56 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 08:10 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 01:22 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I understand your point, but I think you misread what would happen. Those states would not go quietly into the night.

I don't understand the mindset to force States to remain in the Union. It's a voluntary association. Why hold a gun to a state's head and force them to stay if they want independence? I reject forcing tyranny on any State or people. If they want self-governance, that's their right.

As far as Lincoln, he was a tyrant. It's laughable that he's made into a hero by historians, but the winning side does write history. I wonder if America had lost its war for independence if they'd be talking about how great King George was lol. Maybe they'd make a movie about him and how he had no choice but to use violence to keep America in the British "union" lol.


And as a bit of an aside, does anyone else find it funny that it's always the South that wants independence? It's never the North. The north wants to force the South to stay, not the other way around. That's really telling.

My sentiments on the issue.

It was a different time...I understand both sides of this issue and Lincolns' mentality. I believe slavery would have ended in America just as it did other places without having to resort to war...but...The South F'd up and used violence. They gave Lincoln an excuse for war and he took it. I can't believe ANY issue today that could lead to secession would resort in violent civil war again. No one would support that on either side.

Agreed, I don't think there would be a civil war again over secession. I do worry about violent responses from oppressive government though. The US isn't just going to let a State leave. There would be riots and protests and the heavy hand of government. Eventually, I think civil disobedience would achieve the goal of independence.

In my opinion no state really wants to leave today.

And Fo is right about slavery. It would have ended over time. Americans did not invent slavery.

As a southerner I do think the voting rights act in unconstitutional in the concept that it does not apply nationwide. Although I lean liberal, I am against laws that assume that only southerners can be bigots.