Has the time come for a revived CSA?

[monkspider]

How did I know this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame, Frau Fun?

The people of America have diverse interests, and those interests are no longer best served by the kleptocrats in Washington. The less centralized power a government has, the better. Surely you would agree with this, my ponderous friend? Why shouldn't the people of the nation be free to choose whatever government policy they choose? What harm could that possibly do? That's democracy at work. If the South have different ideas of government than the North, then let them be I say.

[Drake Tungsten]

Aren't all of the strategic nuclear missles and the strategic bomber bases located on traditionally Yankee soil?

Strategic Command is in Nebraska, which wasn't a state the last time we had a civil war. Let the wooing begin...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monkspider
How did I know this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame, Frau Fun?

The people of America have diverse interests, and those interests are no longer best served by the kleptocrats in Washington. The less centralized power a government has, the better. Surely you would agree with this, my ponderous friend? Why shouldn't the people of the nation be free to choose whatever government policy they choose? What harm could that possibly do? That's democracy at work. If the South have different ideas of government than the North, then let them be I say.

It's official -- you're hopeless.

[Theben]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Who ever said I favored democracy?

Sig material.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by MrFun


It's official -- you're hopeless.

So says the man that is opposed to teddy bears.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by PLATO


Not so...The South looked upon the constitution as reserving the issue to the States to determine in the abscense of constitutional guidance. Did this make slavery the issue or was it merely the issue of the moment for the South.

It's pretty clear to me. When the United States decided to send troops to Utah to quash the practice of polygamy no southerner took a stand in defense of the right of the people of Utah to determine whether or not polygamy shopuld be legal in Utah. Why? Good heavens man, everyone knew that polygamy was immoral, and the people of the US had the right to crush this offense against God! Yet the issue of the possibility that slaves might have rights on the other hand was the moral equivalent of sales taxes, not to be subject to the intercession of the same federal troops sent to Utah? Do you see the hypocrisy there?

Yet, incredibley, the existence of slavery in the South was not under attack. The issue that really cheesed off the secessionist was the fact that new states being admitted to the Union were rejecting slavery. Did southerners rise to defend the rights of these new states to decide on whether or not slavery would be permitted in their own states? You better believe that they did not! Time and time again they demanded they bargained against the rights of the new states. Frankly I don't think that what really bothered them was that they were being shut out of new opportunities in the developing states. After all, if the south had been so crowded that slave owners had streamed westward in search of new farm land then surely they would have achieved a majority in some of the new states. No, I think that the real problem was that they knew they were loosing the race for moral approval. They knew that public opinion everywhere else was gradually turning against them. In reaction they created entire branches of phony science and distorted religion to justify their way of life. The real motive for secession wasn't states rights, or the preservation of slavery. The real motive was the need of the southern slave owner to fence himself off from the disapproving eyes of the rest of the world.

Id that what's happening today?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Who ever said I favored democracy?

A libertarian dictatorship? I'm not quite sure how to classify that. Would it be anarcho-fascism? Wasn't that a Giancarlo fantasy at one time? Or was it coined by EVC? You've been hanging around with the wrong crowd DF. You're really really close to the edge now.

You know what comes next don't you? Yep. You come out of the closet.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by monkspider
The people of America have diverse interests, and those interests are no longer best served by the kleptocrats in Washington. The less centralized power a government has, the better. Surely you would agree with this, my ponderous friend? Why shouldn't the people of the nation be free to choose whatever government policy they choose? What harm could that possibly do? That's democracy at work. If the South have different ideas of government than the North, then let them be I say.

I agree. I totally agree.

This doesn't necessarily mean we need to partition the United States, but rather that we actually follow the damn Constitution that was based on exactly the sentiments expressed above. I don't think any state would actually choose to secede nowadays, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution specifically outlawing it. So we shouldn't stand in the way.

As for having a less centralized government, and giving local states and regions more control over their own affairs, well hell, isn't that what libertarianish folks have been saying all along? Knock the Federal Government back to its Constitutionally prescribed limits and let the states do their own things.

Then we can go back to these United States rather than the United States.

[Al B. Sure!]

You know what comes next don't you? Yep. You come out of the closet.

I knew i forgot to do something!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Id that what's happening today?

Sad how great ideals are lost in old stereotypes.

Yet, incredibley, the existence of slavery in the South was not under attack.

A fact that most northerners neglect to acknowledge.

The fundamental point, which is made over and over again, is the fact that it was not a federal issue...moral or not. A mechanism to make it a federal issue exists now and existed at the time...A constitutional amendment.

It was more convientient for the federalist to impose their will then for them to follow constitutional procedure...surely an idea that should be resisted. Again...Slavery was not the issue...only the issue of the moment. The economic pressure caused this issue to come to the forefront.

[Dr Strangelove]

You think that state governments are better than the feds?
Did I ever tell you about the time when the state government threatened to take away my license when I refused to continue treating a patient who I caught trying to steal my signature stamp which she was using to forge bogus disability forms? Shheeeessssshhhhhhh. Give me a break.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I agree. I totally agree.

This doesn't necessarily mean we need to partition the United States, but rather that we actually follow the damn Constitution that was based on exactly the sentiments expressed above. I don't think any state would actually choose to secede nowadays, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution specifically outlawing it. So we shouldn't stand in the way.

As for having a less centralized government, and giving local states and regions more control over their own affairs, well hell, isn't that what libertarianish folks have been saying all along? Knock the Federal Government back to its Constitutionally prescribed limits and let the states do their own things.

Then we can go back to these United States rather than the United States.

Bravo! Someone gets it!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You think that state governments are better than the feds?

Without question. State governments are far more accountable to the will of the people.

[Space05us]

Alaska's new state motto if the lower 48 ever actually did split.

"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home" (can someone translate that to Russian?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sig material.

I teased that out of him a few months back. When you believe in SO many natural rights, in the end you restrict the democratic process.