Has the time come for a revived CSA?

[Cyclotron]

Dr. Strangelove, I was under the impression that the reason there were so many Hispanic people in Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona was because they were trying to get away from Mother Mexico.

JT QUOTE EDITED OUT BY MING...

I miss you, JT.

[Al B. Sure!]

can all the urban blacks, ricans, italians, and irish be honourary southernors? we're poor and eat fried chicken too. and we can't seem to pronounce our r's either.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
can all the urban blacks, ricans, italians, and irish be honourary southernors? we're poor and eat fried chicken too.

Only if you stop using unnecessary u's.

[Ned]

This is all a Democrat plot to again become the majority party in the US.

[Jaguar]

I'd support such a movement. Speaking of movement, I would move a few miles south to Virginia if it ever happened.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


if hispanic Texans want to be part of Mexico, why did they come across the border in the first place?

To reclaim their rightful property!

[Jaguar]

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,



As for kicking our ass, I suggest you look up the geographic breakdown for where the Army's recruits come from, and where most of it's major bases are. That's right, the South

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

Even if they wanted to, we wouldn't allow them. They can walk back across the border if they want, of course - but then again I'm sure they'll quickly remember what Mexico is like and scurry on back

Even the ones who are citizens? Isn't that terribly anti-democratic of you? Are you saying that the new CSA will be a racist nation?

[Dr Strangelove]

One more question: Who gets West Virginia?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If that flag offends you, it is because you have not been taught what it really stands for. It stands for the rights of the States. Rights that are specifically reserved in the US constitution, but were torn away by a growing federal government. Those of you that protest many of the actions that the US federal government are now taking would probably support the political ideals of the Confederacy. You must remember that slavery was not the only issue. Slavery was legal when the US became a country as well. It is Not anywhere on the Southern agenda of today. It exists only in the minds of uninformed Yankees.

Bullshit. States dont have the right to infringe on the rights of others, or to coerce them into working for free. And btw, your fearless leaders dont believe in states rights either: they just play any fiddle to keep more power to themselves. Take John Ashcroft, a true American patriot. While he was governor, he was pro states rights. Now that hes attorney general, hes trying to prosecute medical weed users in California, when the people of california have ratified the use of it. Smooth move Asscroft.

And btw, slavery wasnt legal, it just wasnt illegal. Maybe people forgot to read the constitution since it states that all men are created equal. That was a real bugger to plantation owners, and the southern business class. So to get around it, the southern states said that slaves arnt people, they are property. But then to get more representation in congress, they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. What a sham.

[David Floyd]

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

True, but Southern military installations - such as the SSBN base at King's Bay, Georgia, would have more than enough nuclear weapons to hit the North right back

Even the ones who are citizens? Isn't that terribly anti-democratic of you? Are you saying that the new CSA will be a racist nation?

Who ever said I favored democracy?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Slavery wasn't the overwhelmingly primary issue on the minds of Secessionists in 1860 - 1861? Perhaps you need a link to a website offering the very words of those same secessionists preserved in electronic heaven. Here you go, read on and be educated: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

Thanks for the link Dr. Strangelove. It really is educational. The first quote I pulled up was the Governor's message to the Tennessee State Legislature. Here is an excerpt that I believe will clarify my point and your misconception:

The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States

Yes slavery was an important issue for the South. There is no doubt...their economy relied heavily on it. Look a little deeper at the message though..."upon the well defined constitutional rights of the Southern Citizen". This statement usually means to northerners that the South looked upon slavery as a constitutional right. 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. The modern Southerner, who is still very State's rights oriented, takes the latter position. The idea that a New South would want a return to slavery is completely and uterly ludicrous. The idea that rights not given to the federal government reside with the States is very much alive and the source of talk about a New South.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Bullshit. States dont have the right to infringe on the rights of others, or to coerce them into working for free. And btw, your fearless leaders dont believe in states rights either: they just play any fiddle to keep more power to themselves. Take John Ashcroft, a true American patriot. While he was governor, he was pro states rights. Now that hes attorney general, hes trying to prosecute medical weed users in California, when the people of california have ratified the use of it. Smooth move Asscroft.

And btw, slavery wasnt legal, it just wasnt illegal. Maybe people forgot to read the constitution since it states that all men are created equal. That was a real bugger to plantation owners, and the southern business class. So to get around it, the southern states said that slaves arnt people, they are property. But then to get more representation in congress, they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. What a sham.

You so TOTALLY miss the point.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If I had been for a rebirth of CSA, you can bet I'd jump off the bandwagon when some lowlife dirty Commie touts it, Monkspider.

Bugger off Tex, you need a good commie to call the shots around there.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monkspider
Given that America is probably the most polarized it's ever been 1860, I think it's time that our friends south of the mason-dixon finally get their independence.

If you think about it, I think everyone would be much happier. The CSA would be able to do away with social reforms, the yankee carpetbaggers would be able to create the ideal welfare state. Texas would be able to do it' s own thing. Heck, Hawaii could even have bring back the monarchy. Plus, the rest of the world would be happy to see a huge, monolithic American hyperpower disappear. I could even help create that independent Wichita Commune that I always wanted to see.

So if and when the south rises again, you can bet your confederate dollars I will be on the front lines waving the stars and bars. Because, let's face it, no one is happy with America in it's present state. The people of America have diverse enough interests that they should be allowed to follow their own destiny. Sure, we can all unite again later to create a socialist brotherhood, but for now I think this would be for the best. Who is with me?

HA!!! If you want real contemporary polarization by regions, you should have looked at the presidental election results map of 2000.


And no, I never want to see any state seceding from United States.

[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.