Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?
1 posted on 10/17/2013 8:45:51 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: ComtedeMaistre
yes the South needs to secede from this socialist tyranny of washington DC and the tyrannical communist Obama.

I'm in Louisiana .I and others here are talking about how to do it

some of us are here:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/b/50/Political-Talk.aspx

40 posted on 10/17/2013 9:17:59 AM PDT by Democrat_media (IRS rigged election for Obama and democrats by shutting down tea party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

The problems is, as always, who goes first?
If anything like this is going to take place, I think that individual key states, which means the governors, are going to have to conference and war-game the scenarios.
You know for sure that the Feds are war-gaming these things everyday.
Perhaps it would help if citizens make their state reps know at which point Federal action, such as martial law, is absolutely unacceptable.


49 posted on 10/17/2013 9:24:21 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est. New US economy: Fascism on top, Socialism on the bottom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?,

Ummm. It think that was the bulk of the idea behing an association of Soverign States as I recall. The Founders' aim was the best of both worlds.

With the exception of a few delegated powers enumerated, the States were more like Independent nations that entered into a treaty.

But each of the confederates retains an entire liberty of exercising as it thinks proper, those parts of the sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the treaty of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. And of this nature is the American confederacy, in which each state has resigned the exercise of certain parts of the supreme civil power which they possessed before (except in common with the other states included in the confederacy) reserving to themselves all their former powers, which are not delegated to the United States by the common bond of union.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States [1803] Section XII

-----

They now most of the States are servants of the administrative, or 'federal' organ, and the People are forced to go along for the ride.

52 posted on 10/17/2013 9:30:04 AM PDT by MamaTexan (Due to the newly adopted policy at FR, every post I make may be my last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
There are over 3,000 counties in the United States.
Over half of the population live in just 146 of those counties.
Residents of these urban areas represent the majority of "we the people",
and dictate policy to the residents of the other 2,800 counties.
I think any potential conflict that might arise in the future
would not be "state vs. state", but "urban vs. rural" in nature.
54 posted on 10/17/2013 9:30:49 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre; rockrr
If the different states were to become different nations, the federal government would cease to exist. That means that the federal debt would be reduced to Zero.

Right. Massive default. Great answer.

Wait 'till the Chinese repo men get here. See what you get from them.

I don't think a break-up is in the cards, but it's nice to see that if it does it will be accompanied by all the same stupid bravado as it was in 1861.

It's reassuring and heartwarming to know that people can't sit down and resolve their differences civilly in a peaceful and cooperative way, and that human nature hasn't changed in a short century and a half.

56 posted on 10/17/2013 9:31:43 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

The $17 trillion debt holders and $160 trillion liability recipients say no way.


58 posted on 10/17/2013 9:36:47 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

If New York became it’s own country we would be something like Bangladesh.


65 posted on 10/17/2013 9:48:08 AM PDT by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

The next civil war won’t be a battle between states, it will be battles between Urban and Rural areas all over the country.


70 posted on 10/17/2013 10:01:26 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

72 posted on 10/17/2013 10:01:32 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
"If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?"

Now that you mention it, probably not, because much of what's left would be liberal whacko-ville Code Pink types that can't "stomach" the thought of war.

76 posted on 10/17/2013 10:07:30 AM PDT by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Depends. Logically every state owns its share of the debt, so mere secession would only mean that Texas had a debt. The question is: do Americans favor renouncing their debt? And if so, which part of it?

Imagine that Texas left the Union. They might renounce the debt, they would also forfeit Social Security, military pensions, Medicare for old people, etc. Maybe most people would be ok with this, but I suspect (for example) a lot of retired military guys would not be happy with it. Texas could of course choose to replace their mission pensions with State of Texas pensions, but the question would be "where does that end".

So, it's not so simple as you postulate.

103 posted on 10/17/2013 10:51:03 AM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

As it is, it’s too big.

Perhaps it could separate into independent countries (which would consist of groups of states).

California is already part of Mexico again.


112 posted on 10/17/2013 11:05:14 AM PDT by Baldwin77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

I would argue that the time for secession has passed. The only way left open is rebellion and revolution. And we are talking French Revolution, NOT American Revolution.


127 posted on 10/17/2013 11:41:57 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

What would be the compelling reason to keep them around? No offense, but there is not a “slavery” issue that would rally a majority in the north.

We can barely get people to Vote. Do you really think they could get northern men whipped up about anything enough to take up arms and march south? They would be dead in a week.

We could probably whip up and pretty darned good video war.


157 posted on 10/17/2013 12:52:44 PM PDT by Vermont Lt ( 1-800-318-2596, Mr President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?

I hope not. I pray not.

Then again, Mick Jagger wrote...

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time...you just might find, you get what you need."

5.56mm

159 posted on 10/17/2013 12:55:52 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?

IMHO there are some in the Admin that would love to wage CWII and destroy all of their enemies once and for all. Welcome USSA
170 posted on 10/17/2013 1:43:41 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
In 1860 Lincoln got scarcely any votes from the South, certainly none from the Deep South (Breckenridge and Bell, the southern candidates, didn't get many votes from some of the Republican states). While there were southern unionists, there were pitifully few full-fledged Republicans in 1860. That made secession a real possibility.

In the last election, no candidate got as much as 70% of the vote in any state (aside from DC, Hawaii and Utah). Apart from Alabama, Arkansas, and (very narrowly) Tennessee, every southern state gave Obama at least 40% of the vote.

This suggests that secession isn't a real possibility, or if it is it would be a very messy and bloody thing even before the federal government got involved. Talk about throwing out or forcing out people who don't share the new country's prevailing ideology often comes up at some point in the discussion, and that could be very messy and bloody indeed.

Moreover there's no guarantee that the current political situation would prevail. Deprived of Washington DC as an easy target or focus, enough of the majority vote (Republican) would move towards the other party (Democrat) to tip the balance in their favor.

186 posted on 10/17/2013 2:21:56 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre

The future historian Robert Heinlein wrote on this years ago.

He predicted a shism that set apart the south and the northeast. I think Texas was included in the south. There was a great swath in the middle and north. Out west, California was split, inland and coastal. The coastal cities of Oregon and Washington were a part of the California coastal amalgam.

As I recall there were 5 divisions but neither Alaska or Hawaii were included.

My thoughts are that he pretty much got it right. Following his lead I have called not for secession, but for purge. I am specially drawn to the concept of purging all of New York and every thing north and east. Northern New Jersey and Wilmington might be added. These states are NeoEuropa, loyalists to the home countries. They have degenerated beyond salvation but can’t see it.

As far as California goes, I expect the big quake to take either LA or San Francisco out of being. With either gone, California might right its self.


192 posted on 10/17/2013 2:25:43 PM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Travon... Felony assault and battery hate crime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?

Don't' secede. Expel the traitorous states that voted for someone who vehemently opposes the Constitution of the United States.

200 posted on 10/17/2013 3:09:27 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?

They're already supposed to be, to an extent. That's why they're called "states".

If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?

Sure. They always have the stomach when the opponent is a good person who just wants to be left alone.

201 posted on 10/17/2013 4:17:04 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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