The South is rising again

reply to post by endisnighe

And you do not think states create food.

Not enough to feed their population. Show me any self sufficient state in regards of food production. May god help the people of that state if it is decided to secede in the winter.

Or that they could buy from another country if the fed tried any crap.

With what money? The newly created state dollar? On one hand you argue about our money being useless and that the fed just prints it out of thin air...and then you use that as your solution to the seceded states currency issue. So they will be in debt just like the federal government...and will raise taxes on their population. So what exactly are you getting away from by seceding??

And all the United States would have to do is ask their allies not to trade with you...ask the UN to put sanctions on the new state/country...and put a trade embargo in place. And then who will you trade with...the United States enemies??? Iran? Venezuela? China? Russia? Those would be the only countries jumping up to help you...and only because it weakens the United States. Are you willing to make that alliance???

As for military, all it would take is one state to drop, the fed to try military, and you would see a revolt by numerous other states.

That is an opinion based on no facts. I have an opinion too...and my opinion is that the majority of the American public would support any means to get that state to come back to the Union.

As for all the problems you envision, what, is it gumballs and rainbows now?

It's not as bad as a lot of people claim it is. If it was...there would be a mass exodus out of this country. Instead we still have people from all over the world immigrating here.

Yes, a monetary system is not that hard to set up.

Do you have data to back that up?

What, do you think when the USSR broke up that millions starved to death?

That wasn't too many years ago, I am sure you could get some info on a situation that would back up your claims.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Are you really suggesting that the states have it as bad as they did in the Soviet Union??? I do know that many of the countries formed from the break up of the Soviet Union had a really tough few years with hyperinflation and many economic problems.

The break down of the USSR is nothing like one state seceding from the United States.


You are attempting to make this sound easy peasy...I'm just pointing out the difficulties. And your solution to those difficulties are "it's not hard"...you don't say HOW it wouldn't be hard...just "it's not hard".

Like I said...I'm a realist...I see things as they are...I don't sugar coat the realities that I see...and you, like others that support revolution, civil war, and secession are idealists who see things in the most ideal way and ignore all difficulties that may arise. It's not a great way to plan anything...let alone a major decision like a revolution or secession.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG you might want to look a little closer at things. He didn't believe blacks and whites were equal. He didn't even bother to end slavery in the Union when he emancipated slaves in the confederacy. New Jersey continued to be a slave state until after 1860. Lincoln was not seeking active abolishment of slavery. He hoped it would eradicate it self if it was prevented from moving in to the new states.

Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio
September 17, 1859

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.

To James N. Brown
October 18, 1858

I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others -- individuals, free-states and national government -- are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it.

Lincoln was more concerned about maintaining a union. When NC said it wanted to stay out of the war he said they must send troops to defend the Union. It basically became "you are with me or against me." That is why NC was the last state to join the confederacy. NC's largely religious population was against war of any kind. They wanted diplomacy. Lincoln said they could not stay out of the fight.

Fighting for the Union would have meant the sure destruction of NC. Lincoln didn't care. To him it was all or nothing. He didn't care that NC was bordered on three sides by Confederate states. He didn't care that the religious population of NC was phasing out slavery. Lincoln's position was fight with the Union or die with the Confederacy.

Did the south pull out because they didn't like the election of Lincoln? The more I read the more I believe that it was mainly about slavery. That doesn't change the fact that the New England states had contemplated the same thing years earlier. In fact it was a common held belief that a state could leave the United States if they deemed it a necessary course of action. It was not an idea that the south formed out of whole cloth.

The "Southern Conservatives" have gone along with elections for over a century. Yes there have been extremist calling for separation. They were the extreme minority however. Most southerners have struggled to help keep the union alive since reconstruction. More "southern conservatives" volunteer for the military than anybody else. We accepted the loss and moved forward with creating a country we could all live with.

I love how all of a sudden it is southerners that are crying and whining about losing the election. The first modern TEA Party started from Chicago. Most of this modern sentiment can be credited to libertarian Ron Paul and brokers at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement

On February 19, 2009,[47] in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News Network editor Rick Santelli loudly criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before, as "promoting bad behavior" by "subsidizing losers' mortgages" and raised the possibility of putting together a "Chicago Tea Party in July"[66][67]. A number of the stock brokers around him cheered on his proposal, to the apparent amusement of the hosts in the studio. It was called "the rant heard round the world"[68] and quickly went viral after it received a big "red siren headline" on the popular conservative blog, drudgereport.com.[69]

Of course it couldn't be that people across the nation are fed up with corporate welfare. It couldn't possibly be because people across the country oppose being told to hand money over to insurance companies or face taxation and jail. Nah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with libertarians, conservatives, constitutionalist, and anarchist, from across the nation being tired of oppressive government. It definitely couldn't have anything to do with the fact that people are finally seeing how congress really works. (A lot of people are hearing about reconciliation and "deem and pass" for the first time.)

It must be those cry baby "Southern Conservatives" crying about a liberal president. What amazes me is how they coordinated the first organized TEA party in Boston. Even more amazing is how those "Southern Conservatives" protested from White Plains, NY all the way to Nevada.
From the OP:

To this point, 37 states have taken up legislation to essentially resurrect the nullification doctrine and void the enforcement of the blatantly unconstitutional individual mandate should ObamaCare pass.

Wow, when did the south spread out to encompass 37 states including Hawaii?

Edit to fix spelling and such

[edit on 17-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Let's really think through some of the ideas of seceding and stop paying taxes to the federal government.

Most states get more federal funding back than thy pay to the government in taxes. Funny that someone posted the link about Virginia saying no to the HC mandate...you know who gets the most funding per capita??? You guessed it...Virginia.

So what happens when the states stop paying taxes and say they are seceding??? Well of course all federal funding will cease to that state.

This is a very very short list of progams that will stop...Medicare, Social Security payments, welfare, food stamps, education funding, transportation funding, FDIC, mortgage backing, money circulation, farm subsidies...I'm sure there are thousands of more...this is just off the top of my head.

Medicare, social security, welfare, food stamps: That state is going to have a lot of very poor, hungry and sick people. Any plans on dealing with that?

Education funding: Teachers aren't going to work for free...colleges will most likely shut down too.

FDIC: Bank runs like you've never seen before. Once the FDIC is no longer backing deposits...are you going to leave your money there?

Mortgage Backing: Freddie and Fannie won't be backing any more loans...credit will all but stop in that state.

Money Circulation: After awhile with no fresh money coming from the Fed...money is going to be short. That is if money will even be considered worth anything since they are United States notes...not individual state notes. So what will the state do for currency??? Print it's own?

Will the federal government allow transportation in and out of the state that does this? How long will food supplies last without food coming in from other states?

This isn't the 1800's...people are no longer self sufficient. Do you think people are just going to go about normal daily activities? Go to work? Go to school? I don't think so...I would expect a mass exodus out of that state once this is done.


I'm sorry to rain on everyones parade here...but I like to be realistic about things. I just provided a small list of things that I see as a realistic problem with what is being proposed here...and I'm sure there are many many more.

Any and all programs lost because the Federal Govt. would cease to operate in said state would be taken over by the state govt. It would not be pretty at first but it would get sorted out in a little time. The Federal Govt. would no longer have power over the states or any boundaries and each individual state would conduct business with other states as they see fit. If a State ran itself like any good business it would see revenues higher than costs, effectively gaining a surplus which would be redistributed to the tax payers of the State. As for the food issue, the US exports enough food to feed all of NA in a year, easily. Schools would fall into the District they are in already, the local community would need to support it by paying for it. For every problem there are solutions and at the end of it all, the US get a shiny new Govt. for the People, by the People.

if the states would band together, they could get some changes made. People just aren't mad enough yet, but they are getting there. Washington still doesn't get it, but after the fall elections, they will

I'm a Georgian so I can very much appreciate this thread, thanks and keep it up.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

SG you might want to look a little closer at things. He didn't believe blacks and whites were equal.

Most Northern whites didnt believe blacks were equal and many of them benefitted from the southern slave labour. That being said, the end of slavery happened under Lincolns watch 3 years after he took office. You can speculate what he had intended to do but slavery was abolished afew years after. The confederate states, lead by yancey and co, had no intention of even considering abolishing slavery. The month Lincoln took office, abolishing slavery was the core move, and the month later the south wanted to split because it intended to do no such thing.

Ending slavery was not an ethical thing for Lincoln and many Northern representitives at the time, it was to an extent a convenience. However it was through the north that slavery was abolished.

He didn't even bother to end slavery in the Union when he emancipated slaves in the confederacy. New Jersey continued to be a slave state until after 1860.

Lincoln only assumed office in 1861 and held it until his assassination in 1865. In September 22 of 1862 Lincoln declared all slaves to be free. The Southern states refused to obey and continued fighting for succession and it was only afew years later after the North managed to regain control that the effect took place.

You see, the issue with many confederacy apologists is that the Federal government was getting involved in states issue. Well that fact was, at the time slavery was seen as a states issue, not a human rights issue, which is ethically twisted in my opinion.

Sure, we could argue that Lincoln was just as much of a racist, as were many northeners just southerners, but it was under Lincoln that slavery ended, and the confederacy made it clear it was not their intention to do any such thing.

Lincoln was not seeking active abolishment of slavery.

And yet it was under him that slavery was officially abolished.

The Emancipation Proclamation
While it would be another three years before slavery was officially abolished in America by way of the thirteenth amendment to the constitution, Lincoln famously issued a proclamation in September of 1862 which freed all the slaves in the states which had seceded from the Union.

The effectiveness of the proclamation was mixed. While the notion of freeing the slaves surely appealed to Lincoln's belief in the immorality of slavery, the proclamation itself might have been issued for practical reasons more than anything else - to encourage slaves to rise up in the south and to join the army of the north in fighting for their own freedom.

The Emancipation Proclamation was surely the most expansive piece of legislation ever issued by a President, with consequences that were both immediate and far reaching.

Read more at Suite101: The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln: Governing the Nation During the Civil War americanhistory.suite101.com...

Now, we could argue that Lincoln had changed his mind, that he had no intention afew years before, that slavery did not end because of ethical issues. That doesnt change the fact that it was under Lincoln that slavery ended, and it doesnt change the fact the confederacy resisted for that very reason.

So MikeNice, I dont disagree with you over the view that Lincoln was not any better over the rights of americans as the confederates were regarding slavery. He had advocated and benefitted from it in the past, many other northerners just like Southerns did so. However, it was under Lincoln that slavery was abolished, vai the Emancipation Proclamation , and it doesnt change the fact that the confederacy resisted for that reason.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by whatukno
Sounds good to me, everyone that doesn't like the United States can go to the south. Then we pull out all of our military and government assets out of the south. They can become their own country, or countries, and we can have a standing order that anyone coming north from the new southern border must be shot on site.

Then, we just sign a trade embargo with every other country, against the south, denying them any access to trade, and watch them all starve to death.



[edit on 3/17/2010 by whatukno]

And if the South becomes it's own country they can do the same to the North. To tell you the truth I think the world has had enough of our country and it's government and would be more willing to help the South than the North. And shot on sight works both ways my friend.

I think it's a good idea for the South to secede again. Maybe it'll wake up the Feds and the rest of Americans as to just how fed up most of us really are.

In my opinion, the way they're going to push this health care bill through without reading or even voting on it, and no one in the SCOTUS is even raising an eyebrow after the American people have vehemently stated we don't want it is the last straw and if any Southern state decides to secede then me and my family will be moving there.

Originally posted by vonholland

ok so to add this from infowars..
21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA

not bad, and hawaii wants full independence. Cool. Don't know if its enough, but its alot.

I personally think we need to chuck the Fed reserve. That would make me a happier drone of the corporation. that and the fact we are fighting two wars overseas and countless black ops, it may be very hard for the government to stop it.

I don't really understand the "South" thing, here. The states that seceded last time are, for the most part, not on this list.

I see TX, GA, and if you count OK as the "Indian Territories", there are three total.

This isn't South versus North, this time. Although, I would assume there would be a confederation of the new, seceded, states.

On a side note, I'd think other states are close to making the same statement of sovereignty.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The simple fact is that you can not abolish a legal act in another country. At the time Lincoln made his proclamation the Confederate States were a separate country. It would be like Obama issuing an executive order abolishing the sell of apples in Cuba.

Just because slavery ended under Lincoln doesn’t mean that is why he entered the war. Slavery may have been the reason for secession. It wasn’t Lincoln’s reason for fighting the war. As evidenced by the situation with NC, Lincoln was more interested in maintaining the Union. It was a very George W. Bush attitude. His response to NC was basically, “you’re with us or against us.”

Regardless of why the southern states left it was a war of aggression to hold the United States together. What the southern states wanted to do was split amicably and without the need for violence. They wanted to bypass the violence of revolution to create peaceably a new confederacy of states. They even sent a peace delgation to negotiate the purchase of Union forts in southern states. Lincoln rebuffed them and refused to even meet.

Let us go back a little further though. South Carolina’s secession movement started as a result of tariffs passed in 1828. Talk of secession continued to grow as Jackson threatened to send troops in to SC. The movement grew further in 1850 with the admittance of California as a state.

They did not mention this in their declaration of secession. What they mentioned was the refusal of non slave states to return fleeing slaves. They used this justification because they believed it could most readily stand up under legal scrutiny.

The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.

The southern states believed that by arguing what they thought to be a violation of the constitution they could make a legal argument for secession. By stating the argument as one of compact law they believed other states would accept there secession. Since even Lincoln argued the Constitution was a legally binding contract, violation of the contract by the north would release the south from the contract. It was a well accepted fact of compact law that a contract could be voided if one party failed to live up to their portion of the contract. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was a perpetual contract but could not be voided. That was an overturning of compact law as understood at the time.

I don't agree with slavery. However, I do believe in a state's right to secede. I also believe that the civil war (which it wasn't really) could have been avoided. Lincoln refused the peaceful solution because he was determined to preserve the union at all cost. Even if that cost was the lives of over a half million people.

I am not an apologist I just believe that the situation is much more complex than, they wanted slaves and Lincoln freed them.

To ammend my earlier mention of NJ. New Jersey continued to hold slaves untill 1865.





[edit on 17-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

Just let no one forget. We are still brothers and sisters in a Nation that was conceived by the leaders forefathers. Which our forefathers fought and died for. We are the power of this nation. If the power is at peace nothing can hurt us. Are they going to lock up everyone for not fighting our brothers and sisters? No that would just leave them to fight. lol. Be at peace with each other and yourself.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Lincoln's ONLY desire was to save the Union, he didn't give a hoot if the slaves were freed or not, as evidence by his own words in his letter to Horace Greely in August of 1862.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

He only cared about keeping the Union together and the expansion of the federal government. He didn't care one whit about the slaves or that hundreds of thousands of men and boys might die. Yes, he Proclaimed Emancipation for the slaves/blacks, but he also made it clear in more than one statement that he thought blacks were inferior and should not live among whites.

reply to post by inthesticks

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Did you read his last statement. That was his personal wish.....and it came true.

Yes, I read that. The point of my response to SG was that Lincoln DID NOT care if the slaves were freed or not, he just wanted to keep the Union together.
The War of Northern Aggression was about KEEPING THE UNION TOGETHER, not slavery.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The simple fact is that you can not abolish a legal act in another country.

The official standing the US government at the time was that it didnt recognize the Confederate states. In addition to that the confederate states failed to gain recognition by foreign governments:
www.state.gov...

While France and Britain did supply the CSA with military equiptment, this was purely for trade and profit. The official standings of those governments was against official recognition.

Its hypocritical for anybody argue that the confederate states broke off because the Federal government was crossing unconstitutional grounds, you cannot use this reasoning because the Southerns states themselves advocated many unconstitutional policies which in part drove them to split in the first place. One of them was slavery, another one them was prevented women similar rights, and while the North was doing the same thing, its a moot to argue that the South had more justification. So the idea of using the constitution to justify succession for the South simply doesnt make sense in light of slavery, of the rights of americans in general.

Just because slavery ended under Lincoln doesn’t mean that is why he entered the war. Slavery may have been the reason for secession.

It was the main reason. One month following Lincolns take to office the South wanted independence, before Lincoln could change anything significant from the previous Democratic Southern apologist, Buchanan. Essentially the Confederate states wanted to leave before Lincoln could carry out any significant orders as president, which included his intention to end slavery.

It wasn’t Lincoln’s reason for fighting the war.

It wasnt Lincolns only reason your right. The Union had great interests in Southern resources, labour, geographic locations. But slavery was a cornerstone to the CSA wanting independence. You argued for example the taxes on imports of 1828. This was 30 years before the civil war even begun and yet the Southern states didnt do any such thing. Prior to Lincoln there sat mostly pro-southern Democrats who made no intention of bring down Slavery. During those times we didnt see the CSA rise and split. There was debate over slavery during that time, to which the Southern states warned of their pending split, but other than that no real reform to slavery came around until Lincoln.

Let me also say that Lincoln freed the slaves in part because it was a convenience against the South, in the hopes that African americans would join the fight. There were upwards of 4 millions african americans, so it was strategic, but it following his promise in his speech before he assumed office.

The southern states believed that by arguing what they thought to be a violation of the constitution

Which was invalid considering that they were carrying out unconstitutional acts and had no intention at the time of bringing it down. They wanted to maintain slavery while using the constitution as an excuse to break away, which doesnt make sense. They were not in the right constitutionally.

I don't agree with slavery.

And yet you continue to justify the existence of the CSA, as with others on this thread. The CSA was pro-slavery and continued many unconstitutional polices, they had no intention or atleast made it clear they were not going to change anything. For you to use the constitution as their defense for leaving the Union completely contradicts the policies they promoted.

I am not an apologist

Well you and the rest are most welcome to view yourselves as nothing of such.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


It was the main reason.

IT WAS NOT! Read Lincoln's own words that I posted.

Apparently you don't know that Lincoln drafted a PRO-slavery Amendment that reads:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

This was reported by the Associated Press and Reuters on July 19th.

This proposed amendment was wildly popular in the North, esp. Boston, because the North was extremely racist and northerners wanted slavery to persist in the South because that would keep black people in the South. That is one of the reasons that Lysander Spooner, the Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist and author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery hated and despised Lincoln & his gang.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by inthesticks]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by inthesticks]

Lincoln on Secession

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.
Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

Seems to me Old Abe was as dishonest, corrupt and despicable as our current president and congress.

You are essentially saying here that because there was a justification that slavery was a states issue, that it was not unconstitutional. This is in part the argument, that because prior to Lincolns election win slavery was a states issue, all of a sudden the order from Lincoln years following was invalid. It doesnt make sense. The fact is slavery was unconstitutional then and it wasnt a states issue. The constitution grants those rights to freedom for all americans, so the argument from the CSA, and the justification from both southern and northerners doesnt change that fact.

Originally posted by inthesticks
This proposed amendment was wildly popular in the North,

Many northerns benefitted and supported slavery, whats the difference? The fact was, the vast majority of slave states at the time were southern states. True, Lincoln argued incorrectly in years prior that the slavery issue but he was not an advocate for slavery, and it was under his order that slavery ended.

We can argue all sorts of things of what Lincoln thought, that he too was a racist, it doesnt change the fact that he made the order ending slavery, it doesnt change the fact the CSA decided to disregard the order.

Really, I dont disagree with you on the argument that the North was completely ethical over the matter, Slavery was for the most part a convenience, but it was under Lincoln that slavery was abolished, and the CSA with their insistance of the constitution ironically rallied against it.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

here i go again the whole south rising again thing is quite accurate but i honestly think before its all said and done their is going to be a war not country to country or state to state but instead the people of the united states vs the goverment how much of our lives is controlled by the government for the people i dont think so for the rich polticians i think so we dont have free speech curse in front of a cop on the beach in va ticket say your going to kill the president your a terrorist and can be locked up indefinatly. this country is being ran by people who dont honestly know our needs and whats best for us it all about whats best for them

That's just great, do you remember what happened last time? Huh? Do you? Do you people know your history? Remember? The south had weapons of mass destruction (well actually they didn't, Lincoln lied about it), Jefferson Davis was hiding in a cave. Try it again and see what happens! Actually Georgia is the #2 state for the amout of nuclear weapons stored there. I see a black flag unfolding. Georgian separatist take over the weapons stockpile, threaten to take out New Jersey. Federal/ Blackwater troops invade. CNN talking heads interveiw drunken yankee soldiers as they pilliage the country side . You get the picture?

That's just great, do you remember what happened last time? Huh? Do you? Do you people know your history? Remember? The south had weapons of mass destruction (well actually they didn't, Lincoln lied about it), Jefferson Davis was hiding in a cave. Try it again and see what happens! Actually Georgia is the #2 state for the amout of nuclear weapons stored there. I see a black flag unfolding. Georgian separatist take over the weapons stockpile, threaten to take out New Jersey. Federal/ Blackwater troops invade. CNN talking heads interveiw drunken yankee soldiers as they pilliage the country side . You get the picture?