Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: samtheman
What if the south did secede again? Would the north fight this time? Would it win?


I find it hard to believe that there would be anything more than a court fight after any state or states seceded. Keep in mind, what the ruling political class's masters, the Donor class, want is a broken, weakened US.

Secession, while it would be great for states like Maine, would be devastating for states like Kansas an Utah, states that are landlocked.

30 posted on 06/27/2016 4:37:56 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (politicians beware)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: The_Republic_Of_Maine
Secession, while it would be great for states like Maine, would be devastating for states like Kansas an Utah, states that are landlocked.

Kansas and Utah are landlocked, but the contiguous "Free States" consisting of Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are most certainly not landlocked.

Colorado and New Mexico, which supported the communist in 2008, would be landlocked if they decided to stay (or if the Free States rejected them for being too liberal), but that is not our problem. We should trade freely with them, so long as it is mutually beneficial trade and not them demanding welfare from productive citizens of the Free States. We might also consider Indiana and North Carolina, which voted for freedom in 2012, and of course Alaska, which is not geographically connected either to the Free States or to the People's Republic of Obama.

An amusing alternative - logically equivalent, but it would drive liberals who care about words crazy, would be the same division of states, but with the Free States claiming to be the United States and expelling the People's Republics from the United States. We would keep our Constitution, with a clarification that the Scalia interpretation is the only valid interpretation. The words of the Constitution mean exactly what they say, and what those words meant when the Constitution was adopted. Thus, a well-regulated militia is all able-bodied citizens, and "regulated" means trained (on their own), while that prefatory clause does not in any way restrict the individual right that shall not be infringed. Similarly, the free exercise of religion takes precedence over any parasite's feelings that might be hurt if free citizens do not want to be treated as slaves compelled to work against their will. And the rest of the Constitution also means what it says, from the Enumerated Powers to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. We would almost certainly repeal the 17th Amendment, but that requires the full legal process, including the approval of 3/4 of the states permitted to remain in the United States.

44 posted on 06/27/2016 7:02:24 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson