Liberal talker Thom Hartmann wonders: Should 'Union' forces reoccupy the South?

The Examiner ^ | July 12, 2015 | Joe Newby, Spokane Conservative

[2ndDivisionVet]

Liberal talker Thom Hartmann wonders if "Union" forces should re-occupy the old Confederacy.

It seems that for some on the left, the Civil War never really ended. Citing a Politico story slamming southern states, liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann wondered if the United States should "reoccupy the South with Union forces" to restart Reconstruction, Newsbusters reported Saturday.

"Now listen to this in the context of my question -- should we, a) reoccupy the South with Union forces and restart Reconstruction which came to a screeching halt in 187- whatever it was, '74 I think, the election of Rutherford B. Hayes," he said. "He needed one vote in the House of Representatives to win, it was one of those contested elections that went to the House, and the deal he made with the Southern legislators was that if he became president he would pull the Union troops out of the South and basically end Reconstruction."

His other choice was to "just" let Southern states secede from the Union. "Let the Confederate states say you can fly that flag, you can have your own country," he said.

"Just a hunch, but if a person was also inclined to crunch crime stats and unflattering demographics from major cities run by Democrats and compare them to the nation as a whole, the cities would undoubtedly 'skew' America," Newsbusters' Jack Coleman said....

[wardaddy]

Indeed

Those states would have remained in the fold baring northern invasion

[Viking2002]

Here's another smarmy little fag I'd like to get in a room alone with for five minutes. I won't even use a club. Howsabout we just kick New England and the Left Coast out of the Union and call it even?

[windsorknot]

I’m all in favor of divorcing the Left on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and allowing them to continue their failed Utopian experiment on their own.

[wastoute]

LOL! Bring yer lunch.

[Joe Boucher]

NOt too sure those Yankee soldiers would be too welcome here.

[trebb]

Come on down Thom - Y’All will be treated to some real Southern hostility and maybe change your mind....

[Hawthorn]

I think the label “liberal” doesn’t really fit Thom Hartman. Near as I can tell, he’s a hard-core leftist. That is, he’s way beyond mere liberalism.

Moreover, his main claim to fame these days seems to be his daily show on Vladimir Putin’s “RT” television network. Given these credentials, it may not be an exaggeration to call him a neo-Soviet apologist.

[central_va]

Don’t project the Ohio point of view on the South. You don’t get it.

[central_va]

The entire debate is a moot point anyway. The divide isn't south vs. north anymore, it's conservative vs. liberal, and to a much lesser extent, rural vs. urban.

The situation is a hybrid, I can see ENTIRE states seceding and some other unionist states going into anarchy. The state is the logical building block of the republic not the city or county. You need a civics lesson.

[central_va]

Libertarians anarchist that cannot acknowledge state rights and the primary right to secession are full of < expletive deleted >

[ought-six]

“War breaks out we cut off the North’s food. We can do it easily as they raise and grow very little of their own food.”

You’re joking, right?

[DoodleDawg]

Let’s talk about libtards moving into Red States to spread the noxious disease of liberalism.

You uncovered the secret. Reconstruction II has been going on for decades now.

[Rome2000]

He’s a stupid Fhag!

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

But you can't have a secession movement without people. And every state now has thousands or millions of people that would ideologically identify with a state's rights movement, and thousands or millions that wouldn't. In Texas there are millions of people who wouldn't want anything to do with secession. Same in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama...Conversely, you'd have millions of Michiganders, Ohioans, even plenty of New Englanders, who would sympathize with secession. I understand that Southerners still like to identify as the rebel element, but you no longer have a monopoly on disgust with federal overreach.

The days of "South vs. North" are over. You wouldn't have discrete geographical areas of ideological sympathy, you'd have a national population of totally mixed sympathy (albeit some areas would have more of one sympathy over the other, but not enough to for an entire state, not even Texas I'd wager, to have unity of purpose). You wouldn't have a regional conflict. You'd have bloody anarchy. You'd have a confused, mixed-up version of '71 Belfast on a national level.

But I digress; this entire debate is an academic exercise in pointless conjecture over an event that will not ever happen.

[central_va]

If session is put to a state referendum and the people vote for it then it is a done deal bucko.

An anti secession individual has three choices; start a mini war inside of the newly formed country, leave, or STHU. Most leftist a libertarians being pansies will probably go for option 3. Again you need a history lesson and a civic lesson. States rights is real and the secession is real, and it is done on a state level.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Again, if your premise is that it will require entire states to act, then secession most assuredly won't be happening, ever.

You are talking pure theory, and it's pure wishful thinking to believe that a referendum would accomplish anything. We are living in a very, very different country than the US of 1861. If you want to talk history lessons...I mean, you do know what happened last time this was tried, right? Do you suppose it would work out better in round two, with a population that dines on a steady diet of apathy and "Dancing with the Stars"?

[Popman]

idiots like him should take to heart the admonishment of little children..

"Speak when only spoken too"

[Fiji Hill]

"Now listen to this in the context of my question -- should we, a) reoccupy the South with Union forces and restart Reconstruction which came to a screeching halt in 187- whatever it was, '74 I think, the election of Rutherford B. Hayes,"

One would think that he at least should know the correct date if he is to speak with authority on this topic.

[Fiji Hill]

Why don’t we pay Southern Blacks to move into affluent Democrat white neighborhoods in New England, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington state?

Don't forget Vermont. The "whitest" state in the Union is solidly "blue"--Bernie Sanders country.