Confederate states movement?

This is a thread about a revival of the confederacy, lets not go down the muddy backwoods road of who started the civil war.

Originally posted by launchpad
Read some books?? Yup, read quite a few specifically on the Civil War. Sure enough the FIRST shots were fired by the South. But maybe Delta Boy once you finish with your education you can look on a map and see where Ft Sumter is located- then pick up at least one book to see how 6 days after South Carolina officially decided to succeed (20 Dec 1860) the North sent troops under Maj. Robert Anderson to occupy the Fort (26 Dec 1860). An act which the South Carolina Congressional members had previously declared (9 Dec 1860) would be considered an act of war.

u need to read more...Fort Sumter belongs to the U.S. govt for the state of South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter. so the union soldiers have the right to reinforced.

Turns out the location where the shots were first fired - yes by the South- was in the South AFTER the NORTH had preemptively seized and reinforced the Fort.

the north never seized it. it belongs to the U.S. govt.

Will I be among them???- No as I said I am a federal employee and until actual weapons are turned on my fellow countrymen and as sour as the taste is in my mouth I am going to be completely loyal. Part of being loyal though is to advise those above me they maybe going down a dark and dangerous path and vote accordingly to get those misguided folks out of office. Have you written your congressman?

fellow countrymen? then it happened at Waco in 93. wat have u been doin then?

I heard on the news of a Christian movement in South Carolina who wants to forward a bill of secession. I haven't heard anything new though.

Several years ago I's read that California was wanting introduce bills for secession but all this fell through.

So, let me give you my opinion about secession in modern times. We shouldn't allow this to ever happen! I'm a Southerner and consider it a blessing to be born and raised in the South, but let me tell you, I'm an American first of all. If my state is to secede from the Union, I's have to stand by it's decision, but let's don't let the nation get to this point. We would become more vulnerable to outside attacks. Attacks that we can't afford to have. We started out a nation as a whole and we should remain a nation forever.

If a majority of the people in a State want it to leave the Union, why should they not be able too?

Originally posted by Odium
If a majority of the people in a State want it to leave the Union, why should they not be able too?

the majority? if the blacks could vote they would want to stay in the union. blacks outnumbered whites in the south.

Originally posted by Odium
If a majority of the people in a State want it to leave the Union, why should they not be able too?

Or if a majority say, just for hypothetical purposes of course, wanted to kick Texas out of the Union, we could do that too right?

Originally posted by Intelearthling
So, let me give you my opinion about secession in modern times. We shouldn't allow this to ever happen!

I agree, but for different reasons. If a state secedes, it will be stomped out by the fed army pretty damned fast. But if p.o.'d individuals in every state rose up and caused the federal system havoc in order to bring it down and incite revolution, the military would have a bit of a problem, as it can't be everywhere at all times within the US, especially during foreign conflicts. If they go police state on us, though, we may just be screwed and have to wait for some foreign country to liberate us.

Originally posted by deltaboy


fellow countrymen? then it happened at Waco in 93. wat have u been doin then?

Actually, I WAS in the military in 93 and am VERY well versed on WACO. Yes it sickened me- everything about it was wrong- however, the MILITARY WAS NOT USED ON CIVILIANS. Nor at Ruby ridge; another sickening event of that time period. Both events were purely police actions. LAW ENFORCEMENT ACENCIES were entirely out of line. I voiced how I felt then as I do now and while things were never fixed as they should be (maybe because not enough people voiced their displeasure) there was at least some improvement for a while. If you can prove otherwise - time to bring that evidence to light ASAP to competent authorities- but I think that dead horse has been beat enough. - What were you . . . . . 10????

Regardless of the current trend where it looks as if our federal government wants to repeal or circumvent the rules against the use of the military on our civilian population- I will not lead the troops under my command (that's right my command) against the civilian population of THIS country. General Lee stated my feelings nicely.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....." Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861

Sorry for delving yet again into the history-but it is relevant to modern times considering eminent domain/ states rights/ use of military on civilians (1878 Posse Comitatus Act) and on and on. He who fails to observe history is doomed to repeat it.

The argument of ownership of the fort has been an issue since 'modern times' and hotly argued by people favoring the Northern view of the war in an effort to justify the Northern aggression (as if it could come close). The link I provided had another tied to it that talks about the ownership issue and how ownership would have been transferred between states to the Union at that time period- pay particular attention to the part talking about Kansas becoming a state- because it shows things were much different then you would initially think. All forts already owned and occupied by the UNION had to be transferred back to the UNION upon KANSAS becoming a State. Forts were normally built by the state with the aid of Union funds and turned over to the Union- in the case of Sumter- it was not completed yet- and had other numerous issues associated with it- even perhaps the land it was being built on possibly being owned by a civilian (a South Carolinian) - who had not been compensated.

Regardless of ownership the South Carolina leadership and the Union had a standing agreement dated 6 Dec 1860 that the status of all Forts would be the same and neither side would attempt to seize or reinforce the strongholds- because they were hoping for a peaceable settlement on the issues of states rights. The North violated the agreement. South Carolina (there was no Confederate States YET) gave the North several months to reconsider and numerous pleads to vacate the Fort- even so much as offering to lend them man power to move all weapons and equipment back out of the fort and convey them to the North side of the state line. Of course the North refused and had numerous ships in route- actually holding just outside of cannon range- with supplies and man power - a real invasion- so the south was forced to use force to remove the occupiers of the fort.

Consider what it might be like to have an armed Safeway employee sitting inside your living room between you and the kitchen knowing more were on the way to help them out simply because you said you were not going to be buying your groceries from Safeway anymore. (you might modify that argument to fit your version of history by saying you were renting your apt and Safeway owned the living room or was the landlord- but I would point out the federal government exists only because of the cooperation of the states - it does not own all of the states) why is this absurd argument relevant? Get a map and look at the location of the fort again and what its effect on South Carolina might be.

You are arguing military things with a career military officer, holding multiple degrees and who happens to have spent several years at a major university studying the Constitution and the Civil War from actual diaries and books of the time period(s)- NOT just the caca that was turned out in mass after the war by those seeking to justify the atrocities and the carpet baggers. My wedding was accurate for a senior officer of the time period. A whole plantation and the township reserved for the day, a whole regiment of cavalry soldiers with real weapons, hand stitched uniforms, hand tooled leather, horse and carriage for the bride, period silver and food for the reception. All of this stuff was researched for years. So while I may not be the worlds foremost authority or even remotely close to that, to argue the facts of the war having only read one book yourself is just as full of blowing hot air as arguing hieroglyphics with Byrd.
mod edit, shorten quote

[edit on 15-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by launchpad

Actually, I WAS in the military in 93 and am VERY well versed on WACO. Yes it sickened me- everything about it was wrong- however, the MILITARY WAS NOT USED ON CIVILIANS. Nor at Ruby ridge; another sickening event of that time period. Both events were purely police actions. LAW ENFORCEMENT ACENCIES were entirely out of line.

i respect u as a military man who vow to defend the constituition and defend the country. u may have done it fore patriotic means or for educational benefits, but u may feel comfortable that u are defending yer family and frends so i really appreciate that. of course the ATF was out of line wen they pretty much had the Davidians trapped and no threat to outside world. however i know that the Davidians decided to commit suicide by burning the place.

Regardless of the current trend where it looks as if our federal government wants to repeal or circumvent the rules against the use of the military on our civilian population- I will not lead the troops under my command (that's right my command) against the civilian population of THIS country. General Lee stated my feelings nicely.

have no comment on that.

Sorry for delving yet again into the history-but it is relevant to modern times considering eminent domain/ states rights/ use of military on civilians (1878 Posse Comitatus Act) and on and on. He who fails to observe history is doomed to repeat it.

agree with that.

The argument of ownership of the fort has been an issue since 'modern times' and hotly argued by people favoring the Northern view of the war in an effort to justify the Northern aggression (as if it could come close). The link I provided had another tied to it that talks about the ownership issue and how ownership would have been transferred between states to the Union at that time period

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

South Carolina ceded the rights of ownership to the U.S. govt. and South Carolina aint Kansas.

You are arguing military things with a career military officer, holding multiple degrees and who happens to have spent several years at a major university studying the Constitution and the Civil War from actual diaries and books of the time period(s)- NOT just the caca that was turned out in mass after the war by those seeking to justify the atrocities and the carpet baggers.

having degrees and being in the military as an officer does not scare me. it tells me to respect u but having degrees and being an officer does not mean bragging rights and u looking down over me.

So while I may not be the worlds foremost authority or even remotely close to that, to argue the facts of the war having only read one book yourself is just as full of blowing hot air as arguing hieroglyphics with Byrd.

u really dont know me. and u assume that i read just one book?

i expect that u would leave the military that maybe u voice yer opposition to the U.S. govt. suppose excessive force and also that maybe u should have done about it since then. but i guess u didnt do anithing since u left the miltiary and all that masculine stuff about taking on the govt if the U.S. govt decided to go against the American people was all talk. guess u dont want to be like Timothy McVeigh.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by deltaboy]

[edit on 17-10-2005 by deltaboy]

Texas is the only state that retained the right to secede from the union -- or to break up into several different states. There is the occasional talk here in the South of secession, but let's face it -- the groups promoting this are tiny (less than one in 5,000 people supports this) and get no backing at all from the rest of us.

In fact, they don't get much backing from each other.

Ain't gonna happen.

Perfect! We vote the South out, the Dems win everything, then we stomp on the South and bring them back in when the good guys have control. I vote to remove the South from the Union about 3 days before the 2006 elections, and again in 2008, just to keep the good guys from being screwed over by the bad guys who cheat.

Originally posted by Full Metal
Perfect! We vote the South out, the Dems win everything, then we stomp on the South and bring them back in when the good guys have control. I vote to remove the South from the Union about 3 days before the 2006 elections, and again in 2008, just to keep the good guys from being screwed over by the bad guys who cheat.

Sometimes I wonder where people get their ideas, then other times... I know... :shk:

Them darn southerners...

Genteel Monkeys, not just for hospitality anymore...

Hmmmm, slave states were in the south, republican states in the south, Birthplace of the KKK is in the south, CSA was the south, the crappiest schools are in the south, hell Bill Clinton was estatic when his state went from what, 49th to 46th? But it wasn't because his state got better but because the states around him got worse? So why would we want to vote them out? Hard to tell....

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Odium
If a majority of the people in a State want it to leave the Union, why should they not be able too?

Or if a majority say, just for hypothetical purposes of course, wanted to kick Texas out of the Union, we could do that too right?

Yes...

Is that not what a "Democracy" is? The will of the people? [Yes, I know America is a Republic.]

If the people will it so, why should they not be able too?

Originally posted by Full Metal
Hmmmm, slave states were in the south, republican states in the south, Birthplace of the KKK is in the south, CSA was the south, the crappiest schools are in the south, hell Bill Clinton was estatic when his state went from what, 49th to 46th? But it wasn't because his state got better but because the states around him got worse? So why would we want to vote them out? Hard to tell....

umm, maryland was a slave state and stayed with the union. in fact, they had slaves for a few years after the civil war was over (the emancipation proclamation did not apply to northern states).

and as far as the crappiest schools being in the south, is that just your opinion or do you have any proof to back that claim up? like maybe something like this:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

which shows that at least fifty percent of the top schools in the US are in the south?

Originally posted by snafu7700
umm, maryland was a slave state and stayed with the union. in fact, they had slaves for a few years after the civil war was over (the emancipation proclamation did not apply to northern states).

Yeah, Maryland's one of those states that shows you how consistent the North was in its righteousness when it came to freeing African Americans. Shows you how much of an issue actual slavery really was in the Civil War.

But that Maryland was a Union state wasn't much of a choice for Maryland to make. Lincoln didn't want Washington DC to be surrounded by confederated states (Virginia and Maryland surround DC), so he went nuts on Maryland and declared martial law, and jailed people when they said/did anything rebellious. If I remember my history correctly, Maryland wasn't likely to secede anyway, but I guess Lincoln was going for "better safe than sorry."

So this movement is highly unlikely to achieve its goal and rebuilding the Confederate States of America?

Originally posted by infinite
So this movement is highly unlikely to achieve its goal and rebuilding the Confederate States of America?

At the momeny it is unlikely, due to how "strong" America is, however think of the United States as a the U.S.S.R. for a moment. Once they had fallen all of their "States" began to leave, realising that they were getting less by being with them and they would by being without them and it is likely this will happen in the U.S. in the long run as well.

Once they have fallen - like all Empire's do, they will end up falling apart realising that the over-taxation isn't worth the gains.

Originally posted by Odium
At the momeny it is unlikely, due to how "strong" America is, however think of the United States as a the U.S.S.R. for a moment. Once they had fallen all of their "States" began to leave, realising that they were getting less by being with them and they would by being without them and it is likely this will happen in the U.S. in the long run as well.

Once they have fallen - like all Empire's do, they will end up falling apart realising that the over-taxation isn't worth the gains.

At the same time, though, those "states" in the USSR were taken, many against the people's will, about 50 years before, if not sooner. The states in the US, on the other hand, have been around for a bit longer. There is also more individual wealth, allowing individuals to travel and relocate all across the country. Each state is almost homogenous with the others in the population makeup. I have a good friend who moved up from Mississippi to Chicago, another who moved from Chicago to Arizona, another from Chicago to Seattle, three from Chicago to New Orleans, one from Chicago to Mississippi, and I don't know a lot of people (kind of annoying, too, because all my friends left me...Wonder if I forgot to shower or something...)

So, in short, I don't think it's a fair comparison. Yes, I am from Illinois, and yeah, that makes me a fair weather Sox fan, but I identify myself as an American. Most people identify themselves as Americans, not by their states. Unlike the USSR, people are free to leave the US unless they're wanted for some crime. Even then, you can do it pretty easily. Unlike the USSR, we can exact change as individuals in the country.

However, one thing is likely if the US collapses. I bet Canada will secede and become a separate country in a little while. (Thanks, Keen )

One last point. Empires are like dating. Most relationships fail, but it only takes one to succeed. Will it be America? No way to tell. To write the country off because previous empires have fallen would be like writing off your future fiancé because previous relationships didn't work out. There is power in knowledge, and America isn't going about this the same way as any other empire in the past has.