Posted on 11/07/2012 9:28:21 PM PST by FortWorthPatriot
Thanks. Though it’s not something anyone likes to read here, your sentiment is understandable.
Secession will instigate a Civil War. But that’s OK as long as you are prepared.
The previous Civil War was won because manufacturing was held in the North(high tech weaponry) and agriculture was held in the south(food/cotton/etc). The Union had the technology, but the Confederacy had the strategy.
With a secession today, the weakness is held equally in the high tech accessibility. Large cities are the weak point, and with no food, will collapse within a month.
The technology is negated in this case, and where it isn’t equal, population can mitigate it. Having access to farm land is more important this time, because both sides are carrying the same hardware. The ability to grow food long term will trump weapons. An army moves on it’s stomach.
It would end up being a war between city and country, not simply States. At some point(immediately after they attack preferably) the middle of the US would have to go on the offensive and attack one side, and defend the other. Then switch it.
Having troops crawling in from all sides is untenable long term. You will be picked apart. You have to remove the threat, unless they decide to stand down- which they can’t, because they need your resources and your property.
So it’s a good plan, but understand where it will put you 3 steps in. War on all sides. Before you contemplate that maneuver you must be ready for a mass offensive beforehand.
This is a question you would need to propose to a military man like Gen. McChrystal or General Ham. This would need to be planned with 3 options open for every move taken. You can’t wing that. You need a military historian and/or an experienced military man to put that together to minimize loss.
There is also another scenario, where other Nations like China or Russia, seeing what’s happening, will vaporize the coastal cities to end the war and neutralize the threat the Occupied US Government poses to their Countries. But that would come later. This is possible, but understand the goal and how to attain it.
However, the constitution provides a mechanism whereby states may call a constitutional convention for the purpose of adding, modifying, or removing amendments.
One option would be for the states to call such a convention for the sole purpose of removing the 16th amendment which provides for the collection of individual income taxes. This amendment allows for the full measure of the federal government to be brought against individual income earners and removed the states as intermediaries.
Remove this amendment and the federal beast risks starvation by biting the hand of the states who feed it...
Do it NOW, while we still have a super majority of "red" states (if still true).
How are you going to deal with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3?
Congress shall have power: to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
Okay, understood.
By the way I also wanted to clarify that I was addressing the general overall sentiment some might be feeling, and nothing specific with regards to the discussion.
“Have you lost your mind? Such an action would be treason.”
So what would you recommend? Just bend over? It’s no more treason than what goes on in D.C. every day... All the states have to do is ask the military to leave and they would. The states would seize property through state court action. It would be contested by the feds but would take years to settle. I don’t see a problem here.
“And what about your family or even your spouse who are dems. Do you just walk away from them?”
A civil war like before would not be possible today. First, the states that wanted to succeed did not start it. The union did by sending troops. Families were not dispersed the way they are today, and they didn’t have the communications that we have today. Opposing succession by force would be off the table.
Your family and spouse that may be dems would be just fine. That one thing would help make it work.
Can you add Louisiana to your list. We had 70% voter turn out and we voted 60% - 40% for Romney
Exactly, and by doing so, force it back into its constitutional cage. The federal government gets its power over the states from direct funding from business, individuals, bills and recently printing money out of thin air.
Finding state legislatures with the cajones to call such a convention is another matter. Amendments have been abolished before though (i.e. prohibition).
If Texas does it I will move. Will cost me $50K to get out of my house and I’ll take a pay cut, but I will move.
The term should be “shrugging,” not “going Galt.”
“I wish we could make a conservative barter market and stop using any form of currency”
Why, when we have gold? Unless possession will be outlawed like in the 30s.
You mean another VAT tax. We already have one. It’s called the corporate tax.
Absolutely horrid, and I’m an advocate for the peaceful breakup of the states.
For one thing, restricting trade across borders is never a good idea and never produces the intended results. “If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.” —Frederic Bastiat
If the US breaks up, then free and unrestricted trade has to be maintained between the precipitate countries. I suggest you pick up a copy of Sowell’s “Basic Economics” and read it cover to cover.
Also, you are weirdly optimistic about how other countries will respond to your scenario. If a red state secession or quasi-secession happens, the best case scenario is that every other nations laughs at the poor little Jesusland full of rednecks and gun freaks that will be begging to join the blue states within five years. I’m not saying that’s how it is, I’m saying that’s how it will be perceived by Canada, the UK, etc.
Restricting trade is socialism’s twin, they are both big-government interventions into the market. It’s sad to see so many people calling themselves capitalists who want to close borders, which is the antithesis of the free market. You people have swallowed the unions’ propaganda about free trade.
Yeah let’s barter instead of using currency. And let’s also live in caves and eat raw bison.
No medium of exchange=no modern economy. Try running a semiconductor factory while paying your engineers in butter and your vendors in salt.
That isn’t my point.
Shut the factory. Galt is the topic of the thread.
maybe silver, but gold is too much for many items even in the smallest coin.
“gold is too much for many items even in the smallest coin”
Yes, but banks could issue notes based on it, and our mini-republic could either outlaw fractional reserves or open it up to the free market and let banks with varyingly risky loaning policies compete with each other. Bartering would never remain pure barter, anyway, for very long. Soon we’d be batering by proxy, or trading in signifiers of goods, be it warehouse receipts or whatever.
We could use scrip, what are basically IOUs, which actually happened locally in various towns during the Great Depression.
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.