Posted on 06/25/2010 1:17:00 PM PDT by LTCJ
You are probably quite correct, up till the fighting started. Then, of course, over 90% of southerners, reasonably enough, fought to defend their homes.
But the group that intrigued to gin up the conflicts that led to secession, the "fire-eaters," were a quite small minority.
The first thing that needs to be done is for all the right to work states to ban government unions.
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
The litany of secession:
If a state or states causes socialism, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for a Free Republic to go on maimed or crippled than to have all its states and together be thrown into the eternal fire of collectivism. And if the Federal Government causes you to sin; secede from it, peacefully hopefully but secede just the same.. It is better to govern as a sovereign state, smaller and diminished in power than to be thrown into the fire of centralized Federal usurpation
Montana and the Dakotas are our “Ukraine” equivalent.
Hey legal eagle. Were past the talking stage. Keep yapping and playing THEIR game.Your false hope is going to get us into communism...
You should follow current events more. Your posts are funny.
I 100% agree with you. Here is a post that deserves an entire book written about it....
“We don’t need to break up the union. We need to revitalize a robust operation of the Tenth Amendment, with the federal government actually being limited to its enumerated powers and with the entire house of cards of wealth transfer payments at the federal level mostly ground to a halt.”
Excellent point. Was talking with an Aussie economist friend about the EU. As I was lamenting the efforts by Brussels to regulate everything and redistribute, he said that quite simply, the point was to be a MONETARY UNION, as that helps to prevent wars.
If you think about it, the US was a similar construct, with very limited Federal powers which were designed to keep each state from fighting with each other or screwing their neighbor on trade.
US 2.0, sticking with the original founding documents as amended with some clarifications on the 14th, per Rand Paul, and omission of the 17th.
I note that Belgium just began to voice real separatism at the ballot box itself.
I think the breakdown of a country along ethnic lines is usually a futile enterprise (it almost never seems to accomplish what the parties hoped for). But the philosophical divide between Statism and Freedom is so great, it seems that at some point separation — whether physical (by boundaries) or philosophical — MUST be pursued by whatever means become necessary.
All true. But if — as is part of this idea of virtual secession — the federal government was not using its force and authority to extract money from Free states and transfer it to Socialist states, and if — as is part of this idea of virtual secession — Socialist states funded their programs with whatever monies they could raise in taxes from their citizens and businesses doing business in their state — it they killed capitalism within their borders, they would have to deal with the fallout, not the Free states which would have an altogether different embrace of capitalism.
Unless a Socialist state wanted actually to try to go to war with a Free state in order to take its resources — which just isn’t likely or practical — the Socialist states would be reduced to what they’re doing now — being beggars or changing course. Free states would have no obligation to bail them out. The Socialist states would simply have to do austerity cuts or whatever. Or attract more rich people to live in the state and pay the tax bills.
IOW, yes, you are right that Socialists always try to destroy capitalism. But in this scenario, they would only have the ability to affect capitalism in their own state. Therefore, they would be the first the feel the effects of destroying their state’s capitalism. Without any way to tap into other people’s money through federal government wealth transfer payments, the Socialist state would quickly realize it has no choice but to moderate toward a better environment for capitalism.
There’s nothing dumb about setting out a scenario that could work. Especially when it’s the same scenario set down by our Constitution!
Yes, it may be that one day it will be necessary to have a secession imposed by force. But in the meantime, I’m not giving up hope that we cannot make progress by peaceable means.
Legal eagle, secession isn't imposed by force. Fascist trying to stop it may "impose force"!
Not much chance of that, but Florida, Texas, and California are three of the four largest, and the Latino population continues to grow; California also has water, electricity, homosexual, “cultural”, and budget issues that could be used to support a secession movement — insofar as the other 49 states might want to kick their asses out of the Union. ;’)
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.