Posted on 10/15/2021 2:39:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many conservatives have talked recently about the need for a “national divorce” due to irreconcilable differences with the progressive left. We should be clear about what we’re talking about, though, when we suggest the prospect of a “national divorce.”
We are talking about secession. And secession, in America, is anything but a civil or amicable process, and it’s useless to imagine it would be otherwise.
It’s only truly been attempted once, after all, and it led to the bloodiest war in our history.
Certainly, there are practical differences between secession and civil war. But in America, these are distinctions without meaning, because with secession comes “civil war,” if one chooses, as we have, to characterize the American conflict of 1861-1865 that way.
Perspective matters when it comes to defining these circumstances. The American colonials sought independence in 1776, for example, and would have gladly done so peacefully. In their eyes, the cause for independence from Britain was a righteous assertion of a natural right, and their war was a defensive one. In the eyes of the British, however, the colonials were treasonous rebels to be subjugated with ruthless force.
Such was the state of opinions in 1861, in a remarkably similar set of circumstances. However, there was a difference. In 1861, the seceding states believed not only that their cause was righteous, but that they had asserted not only a natural right but the legal right to achieve independence via legislative self-determination.
And they certainly sought a peaceful separation. As Jefferson Davis openly declared, the newly formed Confederate States of America in 1861 sought “no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were formerly confederated; all we ask is to be let alone.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Big issue: If you are fighting each other, it’s hard to fight anyone else. The whole world has become a tough neighborhood.
Just attack the cities. It’s not like we don’t know where they are.
A good old fashioned siege works well. The Romans were good at it. I hear.
The Southern states walked out without negotiation, leaving behind responsibility for national obligations like debt and treaties, cutting off the middle of the U.S. from access to the sea, and taking every piece of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation. Their leaving was meant to be acrimonious.
If the territory once known as “the United States of America” can be reduced to a collection of balkanized regions, that effectively removes that late great nation from any positive impact upon world affairs, as ineffectual as the former Yugoslavia. But that territory would be subject to incursions and piecemeal surrender of territory and sovereignty from other players who are seeking resources and relocation of their own “excess” population.
The denizens of those territories are going to look back at the halcyon days of 2017-2019 as a “golden age”, but recognized much too late.
More scare tactics from establishment RINOS to scare us into staying in this failed republic....
Lie. You know it's a lie. In Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address he confirms that in early 1861 the south sent a delegation to negotiate with the USA and he refused to hear any of it.
Waring: Save yourself the time and don’t bother reading this drivel...
I would lay down my life, my fortunes, and my sacred honor to defend the ideas ensconced in our Declaration and Constitution. My reward isn’t here but in Heaven. I believe that the cause of this nation is righteous, and whether I’m killed by the first shot or live to 100, if it means liberty continues across this plot of land, it’s worth it to me to try.
In Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address he confirms that in early 1861 the south sent a delegation to negotiate with the USA and he refused to hear any of it.
In the first place, nothing I said was a lie. The South did walk out without negotiations, they did walk away from obligations, and they did grab every bit of property they could get their hands on. So even if your claim was right, that the south sent a delegation to negotiate when in fact they were there to demand Lincoln surrender and recognize Confederate sovereignty, it was still after the fact. It was after the walk out, after repudiating responsibility, and after taking everything in sight. Had the south been serious about an amicable separation then they would have negotiated all that before leaving. But they weren't interested in that.
Another damn blog in News section. This american thinker crap is a load.
There's a reason the term ‘fly over country’ exists.
If we want to end the balkanization there has to be acceptance and mutual respect. We are, however, going in exactly the opposite direction. When a candidate for the presidency characterizes the American supporters of her opponent ‘deplorables’, and this characterization is then parroted by the media and urban elites, mutual respect does not and cannot exist.
That's a very black and white view.
Fact is, there are still a fair amount of conservatives in states like MA and CA, and in cities like NYC and Boston... maybe not enough to win elections, but enough to garner 40% of the vote.
On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of moonbats in TX (think Austin) and "flyover" country.
Bottom line is, if it came to a separation, it would be a mass exodus in both directions or a bloody mess.
It’s NOT secession when BOTH PARTIES ARE ASKING FOR THEIR OWN COUNTY.
Secession implies one group is leaving the ‘other’... in this divorce both sides are leaving the other. We’re both moving out and moving on... Don’t let fearmongers stop the process.
In the civil war example Confederates wanted to leave the US and form their own country... but Lincoln wanted to save the Union. DIFFERENT GOALS.
That’s totally different than what we have today. In today’s world BOTH SIDES WANT OUT. There’s no moral issue involve. It’s just two groups who have grown to hate each other over the years and BOTH SIDES WANT OUT.
WHAT’S TO FIGHT ABOUT?
Both sides agree on the goal... they just have to work out the details TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Why couldn't the red counties secede and join the red states?
Urban areas in Red states are mostly leftist, and if you drive 30+ miles outside (most) cities in Blue states, it's Red-culture central - farms, pickup trucks, American flags.
This is stipulated, but is not necessarily correct.
I do not believe that is correct.
The entire existence of the left is about dominance and control of those they disagree with.
There is no significant desire on the left to separate.
They demand dominance.
They demand control.
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.