Posted on 03/31/2010 6:36:03 AM PDT by kingattax
After 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?
Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways.
Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?
Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah.
We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
It was by far the single most important issue, above and beyond all other issues you might claim combined. I will go so far as to say take out slavery and leave every other issue you care to mention and the South doesn't rebel. Leave slavery and take away everything else and the South still rebels. And the speeches and writings of the men of the period supports that.
You always pop up on these threads with nothing but antagonism for Southerners.
For example? Unless you're counting any disagreement at all with the Southron side of the issue 'antagonism'. Other than that you tell me just how my antagonism has manifested itself on anything but the topic of the Soutehrn rebellion?
While slavery was a detestable institution, the South did fight with bravery and honor.
And where did I ever say they did not?
I have not once seen a positive depiction of any Southerners in your posts.
So what exactly are you looking for me to say? What Southeron myths am I expected to embrace so you can say I'm depicting the South in a positive light?
We even have a better cause this time.
And you can dream of your Confederacy v2.0 all you want. I won't stop you.
Personally I think there will be partitioning.
So what you want us to believe is that the Constitution protects those who are leaving and not those who are staying. That those who are leaving can take any action they want, regardless of the impact on the remaining states, and there is nothing those states can do. They have no choice, no say in the matter, no protections afforded by the Constitution at all. The Constitution is, in effect, a club that the seceding states can use at will to batter the remaining states with. So do you really think that the Founders would have signed on to an idea like that? That the Constitutional solution is one guaranteed to foster bitterness and acrimony, and is likely to lead to war? Do you really expect us to believe that?
Jesus Man. I do want the confederacy v2.0, nor did I ever day that. I want the entire country to be free of socialism, which is the Democratic party. Secession would be the last thing on the To Do list. If all went to hell, Revolution would be much more practical.
Jesus Man. I do NOT want the confederacy v2.0, nor did I ever SAY that. I want the entire country to be free of socialism, which is the Democratic party. Secession would be the last thing on the To Do list. If all went to hell, Revolution would be much more practical.
Say, would there be any difference between “secession” and asserting, nay, INSISTING on 10th amendment sovereignty and not allowing federal laws outside of Art I Sec 8 to be enforced within the state?
Your number 3 is where the rub is.
The USSC is a MEMBER of one party of the contract called the Constitution.
They are conflicted and cannot be trusted to render an unbiased “interpretation” of that contract.
But under confederacy v1.0 you had a president who consolidated power at the expense of the states in ways Lincoln never dreamed of. Where the government literally took over whole industries like salt and textiles. Where the government proposed income taxes that were confiscatory in nature. Where the president ignored the constitution at will. Where private property such as farm produce or slave labor or cargo space on privately owned ships could be taken by the government without compensation 'for the war effort'. Where people were locked up without trial on the authority of government appointed 'habeas corpus commissioners'. That's the ideal you have for the U.S.?
I don't think that any rational person would deny that we have fallen far afield from what the Founding Fathers vision for this country was. Nor would any rational person deny that this country currently is on a self-destructive course and that it should be halted. But let's not pretend that the confederacy was or would have wound up being a whole lot better. Or that the Davis regime should be our model going forward. I think we have a lot better examples to follow than that.
P.S. Did i not say that the binary argument would make your head explode :)
Ticks always go where the blood supply is.
You like to put words in people’s mouth and then endlessly expound upon it. I have never said that the confederacy or the Davis regime were the model to follow. The hope is that the current South will never give in to an overbearing and socialist Federal Government. In fact, the current South is closer (politically) to what this country ought to be like than anywhere in the country. Of course some of the cities are liberal cesspools everywhere and this is more of a city vs. rural fight. Put the rebellious nature of the South is certainly a plus in this day and age.
Thank you!
Always good to see that even when individuals do not agree on some subjects, a helping hand is still extended.
You did in the response directed to me. You sent the correction to yourself and I didn't see it until after I responded.
In fact, the current South is closer (politically) to what this country ought to be like than anywhere in the country.
We in the great plains and Rocky Mountain states might disagree with that. When four of the last six presidents have been Southerners and when many of the biggest pork-barrel congressmen and senators are Southerners then it's pretty clear that the South may talk a good game but in the end it's mostly talk.
I actually like the rural plains states and the Rocky Mountain areas. Really, not much difference in them than conservative folks in the South. The Southern politicians who are a problem have one thing in common - they are all liberals. However, most would agree that (in general) the South is the most conservative part of the country.
Thanx Noni - I’ve updated my bookmark.
Bush, McConnell, Frist, Shellby, et.al. are liberals? The first three oversaw a near doubling of our debt and a tremendous increas in the size of government and the last is one of the biggest entitlement hogs going.
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.