Posted on 11/30/2020 2:54:43 PM PST by PoliticallyShort
“The Republicans want truth and honesty...”
You can’t make me believe that anymore. After watching the GOP fail time and again to stop the monstrous electoral fraud and even seeing GOP governors, officials and state representatives enable the steal, I want to see Trump kill what’s left of the GOP for all time. At this point it won’t matter that the GOP would be dead because there will never be another legitimate election ever again anyway.
The UniParty wants NOTHING to do with truth OR honesty-both of which are impediments to their objectives.
PDJT remains lucky he still is vertical...
The "Right" does not hold these same fatalistic views and their tepidness comes not from lack of ability, but by a belief of "live and let live". The "Right" is by far more libertarian in their actions than in words and they could live separately in peace, assuming the other side would leave them alone. To believe that the Left would "live and let live" is both naïve and dangerous; Europe tried this and they received the second World War and the Holocaust as their reward.
Like 1860, the old warring parties are at each others throats again and Federalism will not save it. The tree of liberty is thirsty, and nigh is the time to water it with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Hopefully with more tyrants.
You fix the big problem first.
The big problem is the Democrat Party.
They are tied in with Moslems and communists and psychopaths.
The Republicans like money.
I can deal with that.
“ Perhaps no contemporary issue can be compared to slavery.”
What do people think the history books will say about abortion? Do people realize there have been 60 million innocent people killed in abortion.
The “climate change” argument accurately illustrates your point. The left says that “climate change” legislation and policies must be uniform because state lines don’t mean anything to climate forces, then it proposes commnization of the entire country to achieve its goals. Indeed, its whole “climate crisis” is a giant fraud designed and intended to force everybody into a communist society, and communist societies are political malignancies that can’t stand competition from free societies. Hence, their own internal dynamic drives them to strive endlessly to destroy free societies. The peaceful separation the author proposes simply ignores this dynamic.
If Lincoln was as enthusiastic about this Corwin amendment as you seem to be portraying, then the present-day Thirteenth Amendment would never have been a consideration, never mind the Emancipation Proclamation, meaning Lincoln would have chosen this amendment over the counsel of people such as Frederick Douglass and Cassius Marcellus Clay even with victory in the Civil War.
BTW, which Cognoscenti editor authored that piece? I don’t see an author’s name.
Condi doesn’t have an Ivy League degree, nor did she serve in the military. Of course, the editor might not be telling the truth on the author’s credentials, in which case you might be right.
It’s okay to hate democrats...
Won’t war be difficult since there is nothing resembling a Mason Dixon line? The problem areas are a few states, for sure, but also cities within states. The geography of us and them is hopelessly intertwined. So how would that work?
I think it would be total chaos and be more akin to the first French Revolution in territorial and battle line scope.
Read later.
I agree with you. The article says “The answer for America is old and familiar, not experimental and unproven: Federalism.“
The Left would never consider this. They want centralized power, nothing less.
But we need to negotiate and avoid CW II. Let counties choose where to go, but the red nation better get some ports. And dividing the debt will not go over well in either nation. And who maintains the reserve currency?
that’s not very inspiring :(
currency won’t work....currency is related to governmental budget, and governmental expenditure/debt....so if we are under one currency, we are essentially one system.
The EU has proven this.
Also, lack of a single currency was never an impediment to the good stuff of open borders, the swifter movement of people and capital. The EU didn’t need to go down this road in order for the original goals to be met....so in order for the Red states and blue states to pursue different paths, we will have to have separate currencies.
Which really raises the question of the financial obligations. The author is right to point out that is a stick one.
Even so, I think this piece is a thoughtful beginning of a beginning of a beginning of a conversation about a path forward.
The Conservative States of America would likely have the ports of Miami, Charleston, and Galveston; we should demand the port of New Orleans. We would need to have controlling access to the Panama Canal in order to trade with the Pacific nations, since Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles will be closed to us.
Incidentally, realism would indicate China would side with the Progressive States of America, while Russia and Japan would side with us. Canada might join the split, with the western provinces joining Alaska and the CSA and the eastern the PSA (not sure where the maritime would go).
A lot of words to state a simple truth - return to the fundamentals of the constitution. It is disingenuous to call it a separation. Also misguided to think that we need more amendments to the constitution to make this happen. If you’re going to futz with the founding document then add something useful like a balanced budget and term limits amendments.
She skipped right over the secession part into war. Most modern pundits make that mistake.
Otherwise we are officially a third world banana republic.
Richard Alpert.
If Lincoln was as enthusiastic about this Corwin amendment as you seem to be portraying, then the present-day Thirteenth Amendment would never have been a consideration, never mind the Emancipation Proclamation, meaning Lincoln would have chosen this amendment over the counsel of people such as Frederick Douglass and Cassius Marcellus Clay even with victory in the Civil War.
I have learned to look at Lincoln and his actions differently now than I have for most of my life.
If you start seeing him as a cynical manipulator of people who's primary focus is "mercantilism" (Tax and Spend Liberal in modern parlance) and who is willing to do whatever it takes to keep the money stream flowing into his big business cronies, then it is not so difficult to believe that he was in favor of protecting legal slavery when it was politically and economically beneficial for him to do so, and working to destroy it when it was not.
After the war was mostly won by 1863, he saw political advantage in destroying the South's economic engine and diluting their vote by enfranchising millions of people he would have never considered enfranchising before it served his political advantage to do so.
What people nowadays don't know, and which I didn't know till about three years ago was that the South created 3/4ths of all the revenue coming into the Federal government. What I further learned is that 60% of all the slavery produced revenue ended up in New York City and Washington DC.
The people actually running the slave plantations only received 40 cents on the dollar of all the money produced by their export trade to Europe. The rest went to New York and Washington DC, and was the primary source of funding for the Federal government.
So yeah, 3/4ths of the Federal budget would certainly stir a mercantilist to look for any means by which they could keep the gravy train flowing just as it is, but with the South gaining independence, that money stream would have dried up.
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.