When will the South Rise Again? End the Occupation...

The Yankees have been occupying the Confederate States of America long enough...
When will the South awaken and drive them liberals out?

How did the United States manage to destroy the spirit of the Confederate States?
It couldn't have just died like that... There must have been a conspiracy like kill the families of any southerners that spoke out.

May the dream never die...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Eclipse_Solar


While I can tell that I don't agree with your politics (since Bush is just another devil in the long line of many), I agree with the overall nature of your post.

Though we probably have different reasons for feeling the way we do, I do indeed wish the south would "rise again".


Few people in this country realize that the "civil war" was nothing more than an ILLEGAL imperialist takeover.

The southern states seceded from the union LEGALLY and were then "invaded".


Sad, but true.

Jasn

Personally, I believe that if there were going to be a succession today, it would be by the nothern states, or liberals. Most of the southen red states are far too loyal to Bush to break off.

reply to post by Eclipse_Solar


yes, let's return to the barbaric practices of the antebellum south! duels, perverse concepts of honor, mass slavery, misogyny, racism and a lack of industry

those darn liberals took all that great stuff away...

oh wait...

this idea is laughable. the south shouldn't rise again, rising the first time was a mistake.

[edit on 10/20/07 by madnessinmysoul]

YEA, thats all we need is more HATE to take over. What would happen then? Blacks would be slaves and your women would stay in the kitchen... DON'T tell me your "heritage, not hate" cuz your banner icon doesn't look very inviting. I did an essay on this whole "Heritage vs. Hate" idea, and I must say..HATE won. The only thing I could say about you battle flag bearers is; if the US is taken over by the government, you people with your guns, and dirt road lifestyle might actually save the rest of us.

Heritage not Hate?

You could say "Heritage not Racism", still questionable, but yeah there are many southerners who are not racist but into confederate stuff.

But not hate? Well, that song talks about killing "yankees" like me, if thats not hate I don't know what is.

Originally posted by truthsetfree2009
Personally, I believe that if there were going to be a succession today, it would be by the nothern states, or liberals. Most of the southen red states are far too loyal to Bush to break off.

Bring it on! No seriously do it...

Originally posted by Kacen
Heritage not Hate?

You could say "Heritage not Racism", still questionable, but yeah there are many southerners who are not racist but into confederate stuff.

But not hate? Well, that song talks about killing "yankees" like me, if thats not hate I don't know what is.

Yes Yankees, the ones occupying the South for the past 150 years!

Originally posted by Eclipse_Solar
Yes Yankees, the ones occupying the South for the past 150 years!

I live in New Jersey.

-__-

reply to post by Eclipse_Solar



Yeah....

I think I am finished posting on this thread. Good luck with the whole "slavery thing"

Just watching the tennis match as the liberals fight with the conservatives as those really in power pick all our pockets.

Originally posted by Kacen

Originally posted by Eclipse_Solar
Yes Yankees, the ones occupying the South for the past 150 years!

I live in New Jersey.

-__-

Good for you! Just make sure you stay in the USA and stay out of Dixie.

Originally posted by truthsetfree2009
reply to post by Eclipse_Solar

 

Yeah....

I think I am finished posting on this thread. Good luck with the whole "slavery thing"

Slavery? You seem misinformed. The South was flourishing and the North didn't like that. They came up with an idea, they would abolish slavery and kill all black people or send them to Africa. In fact President Lincoln had slaves himself.
It was no moral stuff in it, it was a shift of power.

The South didn't like being tossed around so they followed the constitution and separated legally. The Confederate States of America was created. The United States invaded and have suppressed the south ever since.

But soon the South will rise again and by 2012 it will have liberated itself from the USA. I know black people fine folks. It would be a shame if all the black people would go to Liberia as the Yankees want.

Okay enough with the slavery talk; the US civil war had as much to do with stopping slavery as WW II had with stopping the holocaust.
Well in some ways it was a statement of states rights and independence from an overly powerful federal government it had far more to do with economic differences between the industrial North and the agrarian south.
The North which contained the majority of the population was entering into a trade war with Britton, who was the largest industrial power of the time, to curtail the trade imbalance and encourage people to buy home made good tariffs were being enacted against England, to counteract the American tariffs the Britt’s taxed the import of cotton the South’s major export. The south economy depended on the money from exports to England and had to lower their prices to stay competitive, none the less the whole thing started a downward spiral that could not be stopped.
Furthermore if you think that the South should rise, what do you think about territories that did not choose to join the Union in the first place, e.g. the Louisiana added territory that was bough and the incorporated into the country, same with Alaska. And the West was taken in a series of wars not because they asked to join a democratic society.
I guess my point is that you should just let it go, it’s ancient history with no real relevance to today’s world, if you think that their should be a revolt you can come up with far more relevant reasons the some thing that happed 140 years ago.

I certainly do no follow the same line of thinking that the OP does.


However,


The South "rising again" has NOTHING to do with slavery or hate.

In case you haven't noticed, the south is FAR MORE heavily populated with blacks than the north. Do you think we'd run them off if we seceded again? HAHAHAH hell no!

Some of you people amaze me. Do you HONESTLY not know that the north ALSO had slaves and also kept slaves LONG after they were declared free in the south?

The northerners of the time HATED black people (and a good number of them still do). All they did after the war was over was mistreat the blacks that had "escaped" to the north and run as many as they could back down south. At least the ones they didn't hang, rape or otherwise maim.



The ignorance of a couple of you amazes me (including the OP).


Books are good for more than just burning folks. Learn to read them.



Jasn



EDIT: I'm taking my leave of this thread. It would be a horrible move on my part to stay around here and get into it with you guys. GOD I HATE IGNORANCE!!!!!

But, a word of advice. Remember the adage "history is written by the winners."





[edit on 20-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Theoretically, on the subject of secession-

The Constitution of the United States is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were never explicitly nullified- only superceded by the constitution. It can therefore be argued that anything not explicitly changed by the constitution might still be covered by the articles of confederation.

Why is this important? The full title of those articles is, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Secession is certainly contrary to the intent of the constitution, and theoretically unconstitutional for any state that ratified the articles of confederation.

Now the real trick is this: states that were admitted after the implementation of the US Constitution never ratified the Articles of Confederation, only the Constitution. It could be argued then that Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia lacked the right to seceede, but that the rest of the Confederacy did have the right.

On the other hand, one could interperet the 10th amendment as nullifying the unmentioned parts of the Articles of Confederation, assuming that one interprets the word constitution as referring specifically to the document written in 1787 and not as the sum of that document and unaltered portions of the prior constitution.

Regardless of legality though, the secession was wrong. We can go over the details of economic inequalities, tariffs, etc, but at the end of the day, SC warned that they would seceede if a Republican was elected because the Republican party was anti-slavery, and they made good on their threat when Lincoln was elected.

Oh, and as for racism, lack of industry, misogyny, slavery, dueling, and misguided concepts of honor: 3 down, 3 to go. Some parts of the southern way never fell.

reply to post by Eclipse_Solar


So ...

you are not claiming for people to have the right to own slaves in any fashion, correct?

If so, I see no quarrels with the succession of the south from those states that vagabond stated it was legal to do so.

I would also like to point out to those who think the south is a bunch of rednecks ... well, you must not visit much. Florida may be full of old people, but, there is a large population of non-white citizens and this I find to be true elsewhere ... been to Atlanta? It is not a 'cracker-haven' ...

I never gave the issue much thought ... but in the right context it doesn't have to be a bad thing ... but for the wrong reasons, it could be quite bad.

Succession of the south sure would throw a wrench in any real or fake NAU plans ... or just cause a lot of death with civil war ... no one wants to see that.

In a world scale, it would be quite interesting to see who would aid who in such a battle ... the war would not be independent ... in fact, world war III could very well be started and take place on north american soil in such a proposition. I would feel that Russia and China would back the South ... while you have parts of the EU supporting the North. If the Midwest gets involved, so will Mexico. It just might spark the 'Titor' event a few years late. We would have the west, the north mid-west, the south east, the north east, and probably a semi mexican section on the border. Canada being neutral, since they are smart enough to mind their own business. Some of the island countries would come to the aid of the South as well, since, a lot of their family members emigrated to southern u.s.

It would be a horribly spectacular event that would be in the history books for as long as man-kind existed as we know it.


Not the kind of interesting event I am looking forward to ... but, with the state of things and how it is headed, something extraordinary is bound to happen.

Pray for peace, prepare for worst.

Originally posted by Eclipse_Solar
Slavery? You seem misinformed. The South was flourishing and the North didn't like that. They came up with an idea, they would abolish slavery and kill all black people or send them to Africa. In fact President Lincoln had slaves himself.
It was no moral stuff in it, it was a shift of power.

wow... but the mass slavery was the only thing keeping that economy going, wasn't it?

oh...and it did end up as a moral conflict for both president lincoln and the nation itself.

The South didn't like being tossed around so they followed the constitution and separated legally. The Confederate States of America was created. The United States invaded and have suppressed the south ever since.

this was already addressed
oh... and the confederacy fired the first shots

But soon the South will rise again and by 2012 it will have liberated itself from the USA. I know black people fine folks. It would be a shame if all the black people would go to Liberia as the Yankees want.

...really?
do you actually think that we want them to go back to liberia?

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
I would also like to point out to those who think the south is a bunch of rednecks ... well, you must not visit much. Florida may be full of old people, but, there is a large population of non-white citizens and this I find to be true elsewhere ... been to Atlanta? It is not a 'cracker-haven' ...

When Martin Luther King visited Chicago he said that the white supremacists there had more hate in their eyes. The South isn't more racist than the North, it used to be an war based on economical reason and it ends there. The north and the south was and still is just as racist towards blacks.

Ps,Texas is not a a part of CSA, its USA soil. But I think you can call it a "southern state" haven't thought about it. New Orleans is a fine city with a lot of black folks.

In a world scale, it would be quite interesting to see who would aid who in such a battle ... the war would not be independent ... in fact, world war III could very well be started and take place on north american soil in such a proposition. I would feel that Russia and China would back the South ... while you have parts of the EU supporting the North.

I think that it will be more of a "liberals" vs "conservatives" war. Red State vs Blue State. But a civil war non the less. We all have seen the tensions rising, liberals brainwashing children with evolution, liberals allowing red states to be invaded by illegal aliens. It will most likely burst into a war.

Bt w I think that China and Russia and the EU will support the North cause they are the ones having all the industry that will be moved abroad.

Not the kind of interesting event I am looking forward to ... but, with the state of things and how it is headed, something extraordinary is bound to happen.

Pray for peace, prepare for worst.

I hate seeing my nation being occupied by the Yankees, I cant wait.

reply to post by Eclipse_Solar


Okay we get it; you’re not a fan of the North, and the many Yankees that inhabit it. Now that that factoid is established, why the need for war? And please, come up with something with in living memory, because you can’t really feel as though you’re occupied by the North. Seriously Richmond fell along time ago.

I actually think that most southern states are less likely than average to seceede for several reasons.

The first is the lack of neighboring support.

If America went too far to the right, it is conceivable that some of the states in the North East and possibly Pacific North West might attempt to peacefully leave the union and enter some form of arrangement with Canada. The fact that several states that are in a considerably different place politically than most of the country are in close geographic proximity to a far more liberal nation makes that more or less plausible under extreme circumstances.

But if the states of the confederacy were to attempt secession again (and I don't believe for a minute that the US would ever let them go peacefully) they would stand entirely alone. They would have no like-minded neighbor to support them. Actually they'd have no support at all. Which brings me to my next point:


We Yankees may clash with southern folk now and then, but at the end of the day we're still the only ones in the world who understand or appreciate you people even a little bit. If you think the collective US gets a bad rap for the whole "ugly American" thing, what do you think the world is gonna think of the South left to its own devices? If the rest of the world had a choice to screw half of America and start building a re-defined relationship with the weakened other half, the Red States would be the ones they screw, without question- you guys may have Walmart but the blue states have the Walmart shoppers, and that's the only reason China puts up with our crap.


Then there's justification. Hawaii has more cause than any other state in the union to seceede. After Hawaii comes Texas, California, then the rest of the territory seized under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, then Louisiana- then at long last, almost 1/5 of the way down the list, we finally come to the rest of the confederacy (which in my opinion is layered, with states admitted after 1808 having more right, because the states admitted during the period in which slave and free states were being kept in balance allowed themselves to be admitted with the understanding that the United States would allow them popular soveriegnty, whereas the original signatories of the constitution in the South entered under the understanding that the question of slavery would be entirely open as of 1808 under Article 1 Section 9.
So to make a long story short, VA, NC, SC, GA, TN, and KY are tied for 15th place in the order of states with an argument for secession.

And that is only covering the legal side. There is still the minor incovenience of the fact that they don't have a GOOD reason- their argument is moot now since slavery is history.

Hawaii and the former Mexican states were taken by military force without ever having been American possessions, and then entered the union under constitutions that disenfranchised the indigenous population. That's about a compelling an argument as you're going to find. Louisiana was purchased without the previous owner consulting the locals- not a great argument but better than some. Then there's the late southern states- "you promised us slavery"- and the earlier southern states- "i know we promised to let the political process decide the issue of slavery, but we changed our minds".


The most likely secessions in the distant future are Hawaii (because we invaded them and turned them into a hotel), California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas (Unlikely- would probably be a reactionary fight between the few serious Chicano Nationalists and white racists, more like a really big riot than a civil war), Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New York (defecting to Canada in response to continued infringements of liberty and continued warcrimes by hard-right administrations elected under irregular circumstances), New York City (seeking international status in response to being denied statehood), and then it gets a bit foggier but I think the Great Lakes region comes next- if America started falling apart for economic reasons and the Canadians were doing a little better, they might go and Canada might take them.

In general, rebellions are more likely than secessions and riots more likely than rebellions. I could see a Southern tax revolt during an economic depression, based on the argument that Northern liberals are overtaxing them and not investing enough back into southern industrial infrastructure. I could also easily see military tensions between state militias over water rights in the future- if a case ended up in the SCOTUS over such a thing, I could see California or Arizona rebelling if one lost a case to the other, and similar problems could exist in the Gulf states.

You know if any state were to secede it would be California.

I read that if California was it's own country, it would have the 6th largest economy in the world. It could fair easily by itself.

In fact I believe the US even has a somewhat hidden plan as to what to do in the event that California tries to separate from the rest of the states. I remember reading about it in a Popular Science magazine some time ago.