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 ...
Oooooo, now threats! I love it! I’ll actually be in the South in August. I’m not worried, by the way.
And what about the socialist island of Chicago?
I wonder how much of that is farmers getting subsidies *not* to grow things?
Didn’t see any threats in that.
Just that your viewpoint would not be what is common, and if you’re not comfortable with that, it would be best if you didn’t go there.
Thank God Thomas Jefferson didn’t think this way.
Once they get through amnesty, and they will, its all over.
Without breaking away, all we’re doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Of course not.
The war was rooted in the desire of the South to be free from Northern authority...
And the fact that this desire suddenly manifested itself with the election of a President opposed to the expansion of slavery was purely coincidental, right?
It’s one reason Southerners ended up going to Brazil because they viewed the war as leading to the inevitable destruction of the Southern agrarian-foreign trade based society.
They went to Brazil because once their rebellion was over that was about the last place where slavery was legal.
-Livingston, 1996
Why did the South want to be free from Northern authority? What was the main problem with the North?
A military coup and subsequent forced reboot of the Constitution would be a day at the beach in comparison. What the hell, we're already so far outside the bounds of our founding documents anyway. How can we really expect to fix it via Constitutional means?
And what is the one common feature in all those incidents? The partition was done with the agreement of both sides of the issue and after negotiations which settled all possible areas of disagreement before the separation. There is no reason why secession, should it come to the U.S., shouldn't be accomplished in the same peaceful manner so long as it is done with agreement of both sides, those leaving and those staying.
Imagine relying on Texas to look after you all - good look with that.
As for other ports, well perhaps some Southeastern states on the Atlantic could work. But the headwaters should also be included.
I’m looking at Washing to look after my well being right now......and Texas looks alot better to be honest.
It was our right under the constitution. The constitution is a free association of individual states. It is not meant to be a death pact. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn’t see it that way and so it is now interpreted by many as a death pact.
oops.....”Washington”
I’d love to live in “Red America,” but we’ll never get rid of the liberal/leeches. Their Blue America will be such a hellhole, they’ll soon be sneaking across our borders by the millions. If we object, they’ll call us names. Then they’ll proceed to make a mess of Red America just like the mess they made of Blue America.
USSA.
Look at the White House.
Look at the White House.
Which makes about as much sense, today, as imposing Shar'ia law. The Supreme Court only offered the construct of the Union as being "perpetual", obviously an impossible duty to be imposed upon future generations (even Rome finally fell), and formed into "a more perfect Union" by the words of the Constitution. Times change, people change. Words written in one context cannot always be transferred to another context.
This is only an early example of "judicial activism", reinterpreting the original intent to conform with the local current passions of the times. Since the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation, the standard of "in perpetuity" (which has been struck down again and again in law at various levels) has become moot.
What is glaringly obvious, is that Union has become much LESS perfect that its former state, with the Federal government usurping by increasing degrees the amount of power exerted in the daily life of its citizens. The national legislature has become insensitive to the demands of the voters and taxpayers, chosing to direct their attention to meddling in the marketplace, to the point of nearly stopping ALL commerce, by both excessive taxation and extremely restrictive regulation.
The Supreme Court of the time was blowing smoke, so to speak. And as such, are NOT beyond criticism today.
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.