Posted on 12/20/2010 3:43:37 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
You can see them statistically on any county scale national election map -- they are the red counties which make up around 90% of the total US land mass.
This is fascinating to look at. Looking @ only the state of Texas, which I think has the second largest population in the US, it leads me to a question. Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas/FW are the 3 largest cities in the state. I think all 3 are in the top 10 most populated cities in the US. All three of the counties in which these cities are located went dem in the 2008 presidential election, yet the state was carried by McShame. If it truly is city vs rural, how did that happen? Is it b/c Texas has so many people that there were enough rural voters to overcome the city voters?
(I'm highlighting think above b/c I haven't looked it up, and just going by memory.....well, it could be off:)
I believe you are mistaken in that. Missouri voted against secession in February 1861 at a constitutional convention called by the state legislature to vote on the matter. Maryland voted against secession at a convention held on April 29, 1861. The Kentucky legislature refused to vote for secession and refused to provide troops for the army, maintaining a kind of neutrality until Confederate troops invaded in the summer of 1861. That caused the state legislature to come down on the side of the Union.
You should have included the rest of my thoughts about spelling. Now you see why I don't hold spelling against anyone...LOL! No, I don't think he is right in demanding reparations. I believe most of us have read more than one book in which we find areas of agreement, and areas of disagreement, with the author.
The Democrat South made it happen just as much as (if not more than) anyone.
Have you checked the electoral map RECENTLY? The South hasn’t been Democrat in well over 30 years. In fact, the ONLY area that has been SOLIDLY and reliably “BLUE” has been good ole’ New England. Not even the Industrial belt has had their track record, though they are shaded a lighted hue of blue. Most of the South, with the exception of some of the urban centers is DEEP RED.
DEEP RED = Conservative Values = “Washington, we’ve told you for over 150 years, GET OFF OUR BACKS!” But Washington won’t.
You can argue all day long, until you’re blue in the face, that you believe in Conservative values. I’ve no doubt you do. But your underlying philosophy, if it insists upon an understanding of the Constitution that allows the FINAL arbiter of Liberty to be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is ULTIMATELY NO DIFFERENT than the Progressive in the end! Period.
If the States do not retain the right to protect their own population, to sovereignly govern themselves outside those powers CLEARLY enumerated in the Constitution, and if those powers are transgressed, to nullify Federal authority or as a final remedy to secede from their tyrannical control, then LIBERTY is DEAD. And, in some ways, it has been for nearly 150 years.
In the 1912 election, Wilson won b/c Republicans split between Taft & Teddy Roosevelt. There were also problems within the Republican Party in the 1916 campaign that helped Wilson win a second term.
Yes, but the South was successful in reducing tariffs in 1832 (from approx. 50% to 35%), in 1833 through 1842 (to 20%), in 1846 (Walker Tariff, from 40% to 26%) and 1857 (to 17%).
I said the South effectively controlled the Federal Government from its Founding until the South walked out in 1861.
By that I mean the following:
lentulusgracchus: "That is not the South "controlling" the U.S. Government."
It certainly is:
In the Supreme Court, Maryland's Roger Tanney delivered up the Dred-Scott decision.
In Congress, Democrats still outnumbered every other party.
lentulusgracchus: "Neither was building the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, or the Erie Canal."
Until 1861 the South had more than enough votes and political allies to stop any bill it truly opposed, or, if that's what it wanted: to get it's "fair share" of Federal "bounties."
And what happened in 1860?
Well, the South had a hissy-fit conniption hebejeebee attack, split off from their Northern Democrat allies, as well as their potential American Party allies.
So instead of having the most powerful coalition in Congress, with a sympathetic President and Supreme Court, the South ended up with just a few whining crybaby good-for-nothing representatives fit only to be rolled over the victorious Republicans.
A sad state of affairs? Naturally.
But who the h*ll's fault was it?
The South's, of course, they did it to themselves.
It certainly is fascinating, and it makes me want to weep with frustration.
If you look at maps by county, you sometimes have a hard time finding the fricken Democrats, and poll after poll shows Conservatives outnumber Liberals two to one.
And yet, year after year, decade after decade, the Democrats out-smart, out-dance, out-talk, out-you name it, us and run our country deeper and deeper into the ground.
And all we can do is look on dumb-founded, wondering
Texas, at least for now, is a shining exception.
But then, so was California -- back in the day when Ronald Reagan was their governor.
I said the real issue is the Democrat cities versus Republican rural counties, but that's not quite the whole story.
"The rest of the story" is the suburbs.
Those are your "swing voters."
Those people cannot make up their minds from one election to the next whether they want to be Conservatives or Liberals or Progressives or even Libertarians.
In 2008 the suburbs flipped for Obama, this year they flopped for the Tea Party.
So who knows what they'll do in two more years?
But that's where the real political action is.
Us rural counties are Steady-Eddy rock solid Conservative Republicans.
The big cities are all Welfare-Sucking Democrats.
The suburbs are whatever the h*ll they happen to wake up feeling that morning.
But if anyone could ever figure out a way to get suburbs voting Steady-Eddy Republican, they could start to put the country right again, imho... ;-)
I've studied every electoral map going back into the 1800s, and can picture a good many of them in my mind.
What I know is that the South voted solid Democrat -- 70%, 80% even 90% all the way up until, you remember when?
Of course, Barry Goldwater. For the first time, the Deep South voted Conservative Republican.
I can imagine it must have d*amn near killed them, but they did it.
Then for about 30 years the South was confused -- voting one way one time, the other way the next time, and not always the South's fault.
After all, if Republicans are offering up near-beer RINOs, what's an honest conservative to do?
Then, iirc, sometime in Bill Clinton's years, the South finally made up its mind: We're going to vote for the most Conservative candidate, even if, God help us, its a RINO like John McCain.
And so they did, and God love you for it.
I just hope that someday Republicans will consistently offer up candidates who are seriously worthy of your loyalty and support.
You deserve it. We all do.
*****************************************
The rest of your nonsense, you got to get over -- nobody here deserves to be flogged with that.
We all support limited Federal Government and more States Rights.
We don't support unilateral secessionism, and we're not ever going to.
SO GET OVER IT!
;-)
Took you that long to look it up on yahoo?
We don’t support unilateral secessionism, and we’re not ever going to.
SO GET OVER IT!
Unilateral secession was never the issue — the issue was the Constitution — and who was the greatest arbiter of the powers delegated by it to the governments (federal and state), and the rightful heirs of liberty (the people).
While you are correct that we can agree on some issues regarding “smaller government,” the bottom line is still that what passes for “conservative” in Washington, and in most elections are offered up as “conservatives” are not really all that Constitutional or Conservative. And with few exceptions, the remedies they offer are much too little, much too late.
The nation is headed for some sort of catastrophe — or collapse. What then? Will these “RINO’s” or “Union-minded, Big Government ‘conservatives’” THEN offer us REAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, SMALL GOVERNMENT solutions — or will they do the SAME THING the Progressives will do — and grab for EVERY BIT of power and control they can — Constitution, Founders and Liberty be d*mned?
You know the answer. Precious few in Washington, DC would protest. And those who sought to protect their liberties from the threat of a tyrannical and overbearing government in DC — either by action of States resisting Federal actions, or by individuals who refuse to comply with the unconstitutional and illegal Federal regulations.
Now, to be consistent — would you support Barack Obama, or whoever was in command in Washington, D.C., to “preserve the Union?” Can’t have the States threaten to go their own way, can you? Not even for the sake of Liberty, or to preserve the Constitution....
When will your research be done?
Why is he right on Lincoln and wrong about reparations?
What is your opinion of the Supreme Court decisions McDonald v. City of Chicago and Kelo v. New London? Just curious.
That’s a GOOD question — but a LOADED one. :-)
First, in Kelo v. New London (2005), I think the Supreme Court WAY overstepped it’s bounds in allowing ANY Governmental entity (Municipal, State or Federal) TAKE from one PRIVATE concern and transfer it to ANOTHER PRIVATE concern for the sake of “economic growth.” The SCOTUS SAID that this was allowable under the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which allows the GOVERNMENT to take something for “PUBLIC USE.” That was NOT the case here. The Government decided WHICH PRIVATE use was best FOR the Government. That’s both a DISTORTION of the Constitution and just plain BAD LAW. It is completely outside anything the Founders would EVER have envisioned for the Fifth Amendment — and it should be overturned. Incidentally, many States have now passed laws FORBIDDING this practice by both State and Municipal governments....
As to McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) — Chicago had made firearms laws forbidding possession of handguns and restricting long guns or various sorts (I believe that’s right), and SCOTUS said that Chicago was forbidden to do that because, under the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the States (and municipalities, presumably) they were forbidden to place restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights. I don’t necessarily like the reasoning (the 14th Amendment has a problematic history and is a ‘Pandora’s box’ of Constitutional havoc), I do think the correct decision was made. I think, however, the argument may best have been made at the State Level — though in this case, the SCOTUS got the decision “right.”
...you'd be better off bypassing the factual arguments, which obviously will not have an impact on these nutjobs, and simply ridicule these people. I mean it. Alinsky had that part right. You could go back and forth with these nutballs until Judgment Day, but they will simply ignore any facts you cite, or lie outright to refute them. It is a waste of time. However, if you denigrate and ridicule them, it gets them where they live. Leftists, above all else, need to feel superior. They need to feel like they are the smartest people in the world. Ridicule is the one thing they cannot tolerate. Debating them only feeds their egos. Ridicule deflates them.What I know for fact - having experienced it first hand far too many times to count - is that that is not exclusively the purvue of liberal moonbatville: it is all too apparent here at FreeRepublic. If not overtly (which is often the case), then through the use of diminutive epithets; as if such augments or strengthens one's argument. What ploy is being implemented through the derogatory or condescending perversion of one's screen-name?The nature of the ridicule that I recommend goes like this: "Wow - I can see from your pathetic post that you don't know a thing about the 20th century, or the world in general. Do you get all of your information from books with big, colored pictures in them? Maybe ones with flying superheroes or talking animals?" Whenever they cite a "fact", simply reply "LOL!! Off your meds again? Not everything the voices tell you is true!" You get the idea. And if you have the stomach for it, keep at it until they stop, but don't waste any time, energy, or frustration on these idiots. Just chuck these insults out there, and enjoy yourself until they self-destruct.
That being said, and nevertheless notwithstanding, I'll acquiesce to the notion that the Union was unethical in its failure to adhere to the extradition clause of the Constitution, i.e., Art. IV, sec. 2 (3rd clause); it however standing upon moral principles that transcend mere legality.
It's been said that that which is legal may not be moral. Moreover, it is an unequivocal Truth that the righteous purpose of government is to do good; for that purpose governments are instituted by God Himself.
It is true that my argument that the dissolution of of the Union - indivisible & with liberty & justice for all - is mere wordsmything (predicated upon untenable religious principles in the eyes of the harsh cold realities of black upon white as set forth in contract law). Therefor, Psa 37:27 has no bearing (nor basis) upon the matter. For the Confederate rebel-States wanted to be left alone in their liberty to perpetuate a depraved, detestable and contemptuous institution. Moreover, I'll acquiesce to the argument that the Conferated rebel-States were wholly within their sovereign rights to unilaterally secede from the Union of the several sovereign and independent States, albeit an absolutely immoral act in and of itself, i.e., the disolution of a more perfect Union - which has its foundations grounded in the grace of God. But pay no nevermind to me, in that what I refer to are a most eloquent hymn (America the Beautiful) and the Pledge of Allegiance, which ultimately are just so many words, not having any real substantive meaning apart from whatever the current and most popular demagogue makes them out to be.
That notwithstanding, whatever ethical basis upon which secession stands is eclipsed by the reprehensible institution upon which the Confederacy stood. Its been well said that one should stand for something or one will fall for anything; for that reason alone I admire the collossal struggle the citizens of Confederacy undertook. The purported objective of of a compact entered amenably between likeminded participants so as to thwart the all to real potential of a central government encroaching upon common, decent and civil liberty through tyranny, oppression and violation of unalienable rights of Man are most commendable, laudible and noble ideals.
But for whom are those ideals attributable? Is the negro to be included in such El Traviata opera? Whom is being oppressed by who? Frankly I see the conflict as being a revolt of libertarian ideals against the rational world; the greatest libertaria ideal is that of property rights - the epitomy of liberty above all others - it is a travesty of justice to argue that people can be property; herein lies the conundrum.
I fail to see any difference to the foregoing and any arbitrary region of the existing Union ruling that polygamist homosexual child-rape necrophiliac cannibalism is the law of the land. Should the Federal government encroach upon the liberty and freedom of a people who have so decided for themselves, then that encroachment is outside the bounds of the legally permissable compact between the States themselves - what after all is the Fed Gov - and seccession and violent as a viable option.
Its been said of diplomats that given an untenable and wholly unwinnable circumstance that they would nevertheless attempt to negotiate and diplomate in the clear faced evidence their evidence would unequivocally fail until the end of time. The reason being: that's what diplomat and negotiators do; a military resolution being merely a violent solution to a political question that is irreconcilable at the polls (or one the powers-that-be are unwilling to have decided at the polls). Its far too maudlin to have political change be decided peacably at the polls.
The North is accused by the Confederate-rebels of being the 'pushers' of the person-as-property drug. The unpalatable truth to the Confederate-rebel South is that Congress outlawed that market within 30 years of the foundation of the 1st American republic; their mandate in doing so was fully within the purvue of their regulatory ability of the commerce clause.
It is very much to my chagrin that within a decade the Marshal court issued several opinions that IMHO was the harbinger of things to come; the 'War of Northern Aggression' merely being the actual burial of the foundational republic. It could be argued that the 2ndnd republic ended w/WWII. The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning are functionally, practically immaterial except for pragmatic issues.
Where are we now? At the beginning of the end of the 3rd republic? Or are we actually witnessing the dawn of the 4th Reich?
ping
An eloquently stated case. You are correct, of course, about arguing with some people, whether they be Progressives or claim to be conservatives right here on FreeRepublic. It’s a waste of time. I am reminded of the old adage: “Never argue with a fool, lest he pull you down to his level and then beat you just from his abundance of experience.”
Insofar as your points regarding the Confederacy — I noted earlier in the thread that the Confederacy stood up to the tyranny of the Federal Government “however imperfectly.” I have not suggested that the Confederacy was a utopia, that their institutions were sacred, nor that they had the “moral” high ground on every issue. I certainly believe they DID on most issues Constitutional and with regard to the role of the States and the Federal Government — but the concept of Slavery was the huge Achilles heel of the Confederacy in every way. I certainly don’t deny that. (Incidentally, neither did Generals “Stonewall” Jackson nor Robert E. Lee). Those who opposed slavery, however, overemphasize it’s role in “the late unpleasantness” in order to justify the aggression of the “Union.”
The questions that CAN be rationally discussed are — could slavery have been peacefully ended WITHOUT war? And, how prominent was slavery in the South in 1861? Was slavery a growing or dying institution? And most importantly — SEPARATE the issue of slavery — Can a FREE people of a given State or region come to the place that they must throw off the yoke of tyranny placed upon them by an ever-growing, unrestrained central government that will not adhere to the lawful limits they once pledged to defend?
If not — I submit we are arguing about the wrong war — and we should immediately sue for reconciliation to return as subjects to the throne of the Queen of Great Britain.
You should have stopped right there. To justify the Northern Invasion with further ruminations makes you sound like a fascist.
You arguing with yourself?
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.