Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should the South secede?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
www.salon.com...

Well,here's an inflammatory subject matter. Personally, I agree with him. People in the south have a very different idea of governance than those in the north. I would leave the south if this happened as my political views are not accepted. I've been the subject of vandalism, I wouldn't stick around to find out if our local government was ok with taking it to the next level. But on to the meat of the matter, in reality it's a silly conversation because it's not going to happen. The south wouldn't survive long without money from the other states in the form of federal money.

I'd rather we not end up fighting the civil war again in this conversation though.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
That didn't work out too well last time.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I read your link, and what I see (in my opinion) are bloggers painting with a very broad brush, compartmentalizing people within geographical regions into specific mindsets that may not be as homogeneous as the writer believes.

I have relatives and friends in both regions. Just my own miniscule sample, but I don't believe that any of them would see any value in further dividing an alreading divisive nation.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Actually the South would be just fine... they have plenty of agriculture, access to various waterways, and all of the money that they send to the FedGov would be kept for themselves, so they wouldn't need money from other states.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Also, "The South" can't secced, however the individual states that make up the South could and then form their own Confederation.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Yes there are "Liberals" in the south, they are the minority though. I think the problem for me is I have lived here a long time. The south simply has different priorities than the north. Always has. This is a place where legislating morality is fine and raising taxes for school is a hanging offense. There are exceptions to this in some of the more liberal cities, but generally speaking that's how it goes. I could dig up tons of news articles from my local area to show it. I don't think such a separation needs to be violent, but a lot of people in the south would love to be outside the influence of politicians they consider completely outside their culture.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I agree that painting people with general regional stereotypes is not truly accurate. I think because the difference really comes down between rural vs. urban. I have lived in the Deep South and in rural Northern California, and both areas politically are actually pretty similar. Go to San Francisco or New Orleans or Atlanta, and the demographics / political views change a bit.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Everywhere you go, everybody you talk to, people have ideas and those ideas coalesce and people want this or that thing to happen or be legislated. There is a similar division on the teensy little country in which I live, but that doesn't mean that peoples' lives would be enhanced by a formal division.

Think about it -- where would "The Fed" reside if the South were to secede? would the resource of the South be sufficient to trade with the Rest to replace infrastructure and other systems? Certainly a new monetary system would have to be created. What would IT be based upon given these challenging times?

Again, my opinion, but I think contemplating a secession is ill-advised.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Secession of any state is highly doubtful since the issues regarding states rights and even how one defines oneself has evolved greatly since the Civil War. Pre-Civil War people tended to think of themselves as citizens of a state primarily - and a nation secondarily.

Today states rights are far less of an issue and very few of us tend to think of ourselves as citizens of a state above nation.

And to back up a previously made point - there are liberals in the south, myself included.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by antonia
 


Everywhere you go, everybody you talk to, people have ideas and those ideas coalesce and people want this or that thing to happen or be legislated. There is a similar division on the teensy little country in which I live, but that doesn't mean that peoples' lives would be enhanced by a formal division.



It's about what people think in the end isn't it?
www.amazon.com...
You should check this book out. As for the infrastructure, well I don't know. As I said it won't happen because the south needs the money provided by the Federal government (that is takes from other states) to provide for it's infrastructure. I think it would please the vast majority of people in the south in ideological terms, but it's nothing more than fleeting talk in the end right now. I do think it things continue as they are a breakdown is the most likely end result.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
So now why should the South secede? Let the North do it. Or better yet, let all of the liberal, progressive, atheist, big government, constitution hating, Obama/Pilosi/Reid lovers buy up the Bahamas and put their capital in Havana, Cuba, and get out of the country that they despise so much which was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Just saying.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Yes, Texas should secede. If I am correct in my Texas history, we are the only state that is "allowed" to secede.

Most people might not know, but Texas is on it's own power grid. We can actually secede and not be dependent upon power sources from the north. If shtf up north, our power could be be running. We have oil, agriculture, and many of the means to get by alone.

Also, the number of concealed handgun license owners in Texas exceeds that of all active military persons in the entire United States. If we all banned together, it certainly could be done. There is money in Texas and opportunity.

Forbes just listed Houston as the coolest city in America. Why? Because we have jobs. We have an economy that (for now) is not following suit with the rest of the US. So yes, maybe it would be best we leave. I'm in.
edit on 13-8-2012 by fictitious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by fictitious
 


Texas has some serious water issues though. Considering it's largest fresh water source is attached to several other states, I think you will have a difficult time telling them to get stuffed unless you can build mass desalinization plants rather quickly and cheaply.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
On the contrary, the South would favor much better now than they did during the actual Civil War, if they were to secede. They would be much better off, and would be much more prepared to fight a war. But there would be many differences from the Civil War, mostly due to integration, not of the different races, but of everyone in general, mainly due to technology. I mean there would be many more people in the North who would consider themselves Southerners, at least imo, than there were during the war.

I for one would vote for secession, mainly because the federal government has gotten out of hand. I wouldn't mind standing for some of the ideals the South had during the Civil War either, mainly states' rights, although their views on slavery and whatnot were outdated. This was mainly the rich though, as opposed to your average Southern family, statistics say.

Fighting a modern war would be extremely tricky, and costly. I personally would take up arms...Or hide in the mystery cave, which cave-ologists say is over 100 years old, and holds 1,000 mysteries. Or is it 1,000 years old, and 100 mysteries? That, my friend, is part of the mystery...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


personally if you ask this "yankee"
good riddance

the decent folks will simply move north

here's why, a little eye opener:

Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America America didn't used to be run like an old Southern slave plantation, but we're headed that way now. How did that happen?

North versus South: Two Definitions of Liberty

Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.www.powells.com... He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning. ***
Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton plantations from Barbados -- the younger sons of the British nobility who'd farmed up the Caribbean islands, and then came ashore to the southern coasts seeking more land. Woodward described the culture they created in the crescent stretching from Charleston, SC around to New Orleans this way:

It was a near-carbon copy of the West Indian slave state these Barbadians had left behind, a place notorious even then for its inhumanity....From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts that continue to plague the United States to this day.

David Hackett Fischer, whose Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America informs both Lind's and Woodard's work, described just how deeply undemocratic the Southern aristocracy was, and still is. He documents how these elites have always feared and opposed universal literacy, public schools and libraries, and a free press. (Lind adds that they have historically been profoundly anti-technology as well, far preferring solutions that involve finding more serfs and throwing them at a problem whenever possible. Why buy a bulldozer when 150 convicts on a chain gang can grade your road instead?) Unlike the Puritan elites, who wore their wealth modestly and dedicated themselves to the common good, Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games of fortune, predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.

But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule. Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, unrestrained right to turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and subjects.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


lol heff
i'm sure you'll be welcome up north



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by argentus
 


Yes there are "Liberals" in the south, they are the minority though. I think the problem for me is I have lived here a long time. The south simply has different priorities than the north. Always has. This is a place where legislating morality is fine and raising taxes for school is a hanging offense. There are exceptions to this in some of the more liberal cities, but generally speaking that's how it goes. I could dig up tons of news articles from my local area to show it. I don't think such a separation needs to be violent, but a lot of people in the south would love to be outside the influence of politicians they consider completely outside their culture.


Most of the Liberals in the South moved from up North because of high taxes, and they are so stupid that when they get to the South, they vote for the same type of idiots that ruined their home state.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime


Most of the Liberals in the South moved from up North because of high taxes, and they are so stupid that when they get to the South, they vote for the same type of idiots that ruined their home state.


Oh, so they are stupid? A liberal has never brought anything good to the planet I guess. This is why I call for a national divorce. What in the hell is the point of having a country with people who can't get along and govern themselves?


reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 



The North is too damn cold. Look, they may hate my guts down here but until they start physically assaulting me I will stick it out. I hate the cold that much.
edit on 13-8-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime


Most of the Liberals in the South moved from up North because of high taxes, and they are so stupid that when they get to the South, they vote for the same type of idiots that ruined their home state.


Oh, so they are stupid? A liberal has never brought anything good to the planet I guess. This is why I call for a national divorce. What in the hell is the point of having a country with people who can't get along and govern themselves?


reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 



The North is too damn cold. Look, they may hate my guts down here but until they start physically assaulting me I will stick it out. I hate the cold that much.
edit on 13-8-2012 by antonia because: added a thought


Stalin was being himself. Charles Manson was being himself. The Progressive ideology is the enemy of liberty and the Constitution. I say Progressive because that is what Liberals are... there is nothing Liberal about them except when discussing the murder of unborn children, but I digress. I think you are on to something here... lets go our seperate ways... Liberty lovers on one side, and Progressives on the other. You guys try running an entitlement society and see how far you get. We'll employ free market Austrian economics and promote individual liberty and sovereignty, and let's see who is where in a decade.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime


Stalin was being himself. Charles Manson was being himself. The Progressive ideology is the enemy of liberty and the Constitution.


And you are being yourself. What is wrong with being yourself? Oh I get it, you are one of those people who thinks anyone who doesn't believe what you do is the enemy.

And to the rest of the people posting:This is exactly why we need a divorce. How do you work it out with people like this? People who literally believe the planet is better off without you? There is no compromise to be worked out here. But then again it seems compromise has become a dirty word these days.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join