If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

Secession is about protecting the ultimate minority, the individual.

 

Is this like that idiot that got taser'd in court and claimed he himself was a sovereign nation and wasn't responsible to answer to any law enforcement? lol

He went down like a bag of bricks.

 

It's like abolitionists using jury nullification to resist the fugitive slave acts.

 

The plan to attack Sumter was planned months before a single man was sent to support the troops there.

 

The so called invasion was an already existing Union fort. AND the attack came before the confederacy ever made a declaration of their independence.

 

The fort was on southern land. They were told to leave in peace but Lincoln refused and sent an invasion force instead.

And the battles of Concord and Lexington happened before the Congress made their declaration of independence.

 

Okay? From what I've seen the majority of secession movements in this country don't use being "tired of minorities doing x or y" as rationales for their cause so what's your point exactly? You seem to be making unfounded generalizations.

 

Spot on! ExLib!!!! I don't see that anyone quoted you or even acknowledged that excellent truth you shared but you are 110% correct in you analysis. The liberals are green with envy and they can't stand the fact that RED STATES are more profitable, outstandingly FREE and safer than blues are. Except for many of the cities within Red States (that happen to be ran by liberal thinking for the most part) we practically have the utopia that liberals have dreamed of for many moons.

I couldn't sleep, saw this thread and could (literally) not put it down. Very good thread on all counts and could have been even better without some of the bigoted posters who spouted ignorance and falsehoods without actually debating the issues. On the other hand, a few (such as Exlib, LilMike and Unifier) truly shined by answering the question and adding reason and 'reasonable' respect within their reply/post.

The person seeking an answer to the question that started this post need only look and compare Red States to Blue ones in seeing how either will look after a hypothetical 'SPLIT' occurred. California......bankrupt and morally corrupt with high taxes and a mass exodus to Red States where industry is growing, taxes are lower and a safer environment to raise their children is obvious. It is simple to understand unless you are an absolute idiot. The bottom line is that you don't see businesses or INDIVIDUALS rushing to the filthy, liberal cities or states where liberalism abounds. It is liberalism that paves the way for the so-called right wing extremism of muSLUMs who have practically taken over areas such as Dearborne, Michigan. I don't see so-called WHITE Christians doing any of the things that would even come close to associating them with muSLUMs but I do see them giving to the needy (both here and overseas) because they are full of love and have done more to keep this Nation strong, fed and defended than any other group I can think of. After all, it was the Christians who developed this Nation and the laws we live by.
As for Red States starving.....you've gotta be kidding me?! Whomever among the posters in this thread that said this is either a liar or extremely ignorant of fact. WE hunt and grow practically everything we need to survive. We have OIL, GAS, TIMBER, CORN, SOYBEANS, Etc. Etc. etc. Liberals would do well to think things through before speaking or writing their mind. A silent fool is a fool that we can only question their ignorance or foolishness.....a fool that rambles on without thinking or knowing what they're talking about removes ALL doubt as to how ignorant, foolish or hate-filled they truly are. Case in point is with many who posted on the first page of this thread. I saw no intelligent answers....only rants of ignorance and bigotry.

As for the SOUTH getting their @$$ kicked during the War Between the States; the SOUTH was far outnumbered, had little industry and was bombarded with monstrous devices of warfare. Now, the South has a much greater population, has a seemingly equal industry with some of the BEST naval yards and space programs and we STILL have the best shots, outdoorsmen and tough good ole boys who make up much of the @$$ kickin'-nest groups and individuals within the military. Always have....always will. From Sgt. York to the likes of Chris Kyle. I believe it the $#!T was to ever hit the fan (again).....things may very well go a totally different direction this time around but I hope the South is never forced to "do it again" but I'm sure there will be many mid-western and many northerners on our side this time and that spells U.G.L.Y. with all caps. Yes......tall, long walls would definitely need to be built. Just as East Germany and the USSR built the walls, so would the liberal LEFTwing bullies need a wall to detain those seeking a better life in RED STATES. They are an evil bunch who seek TOTAL control of others and strive to take from one who has worked hard and taken many risks to give to another who may or may not deserve such "gifts". This is the reason secession has been in the air.....not because of B.O. being black. That's garbage that only the trashiest of the left spew from their mouth. There isn't an ounce of truth in it.

And to clarify the JESUS doctrine being that of ObamaCare.....Christ NEVER said that we should TAKE from one to give to another. He stressed that we FREELY give and help one another (as my church and many good people do WITHOUT the government FORCING us to do). If liberals would try to be productive and GIVE instead of covet what others have and rob, we'd be much better off. Unfortunately, TAKING is the liberal way because they have nothing to give.

In closing; Just look at what we have today and compare....SIMPLE (unless you are simple minded).

 

In response to remarks such as "give em back to Mexico", "build a fence", "pack em off to Texas" and other such irrational, ill-conceived, and unimaginative nonsense we've all heard a hundred times before, let me introduce a few facts into the equation for you to consider.

Texas:
GDP: 1.3 Trillion,Ranked # 2 in the nation.
Agricultural Land: 130 million acres Ranked #1 in the nation
Market Value of Agricultural Products: 21 billion, Ranked #2 in the nation
Civilian Labor Force: 12.8 million, Ranked #1 in the nation
Exports: Ranks #1 in the nation with 16% of US Total
Were Texas an independent nation, it would rank as the 14th largest economy in the world.

ENERGY RESERVES:
Crude Oil Reserves: 26% of US Total
Dry Natural Gas Reserves: 29% of US Total
Natural Gas Plant Liquid: 42% of US Total

PRODUCTION:
Crude Oil: 36% of US Total
Natural Gas: 29% of US Total
Renewables: (Wind, Solar) 17% of US Total
Total Energy 16.2% of US Total
Refining Capacity: 27.5% of US Total

An extensive network of natural gas pipelines, originating in Texas, extends out to the East and West Coasts, as well as the mid-West. The system supplies natural gas from Texas, Oklahoma, & New Mexico to deficit states across the nation.

Most of Texas is serviced by it's own power grid, independent from Eastern and Western grids.

I hope this helps...Love Ringo.

 

Would the Texans be terribly upset if their step children across the Sabine River come along?
We have been pretty nice about sharing Toledo Bend all these years ... And we respect your Wildlife and Fisheries agents on the waterway.

With enough Tex-Mex and Cajun food ... We would damn sure eat good anyway.
We have the Haynesville Shale Reserves ... A few refineries ... And the rest of the US would be hurting for gasoline.

 

Oh? Please explain.

 

I say more power unto you. Heck, the capitol of Louisiana, for years, has been said to reside in Port Arthur, Tx, as more Coonasses reside there than in Louisiana. Teasing of course. My maternal roots run deep in Louisiana, my Grandmother ( a Rougeou ) having been born in Alexandria during a big flood of the Mississippi and having her middle name as Highwater. ( only in Louisiana )

Just leave the politics alone and in Baton Rouge.

 

That's just stupid and unrealistic to say.

Anyone living on "Earth" should know better than to say that.

 

Troop ... Not troops.

Before troops were sent to Fort Sumter ... There was only one soldier at the fort (the Lighthouse Keeper).
The best part is that they call it the Battle of Fort Sumter ... Although no one was killed during the battle (one Union Officer was killed during the celebration ceremony when a gun exploded).

 

Hey ... I will admit that the Texas Hill Country has some decent vineyards ... And it is healthier if we have more options than moonshine.
Any resident can help define politics in Louisiana ... "Ineffective" is usually the best description.

 

Sure, the more the merrier. We're probably gonna take New Mexico with us too, elsewise where the hell are we gonna snow ski?

 

They had not yet declared independence. They were not their own nation when they attacked. That is what made it a rebellion, and allowed the use of military force. If they had tried to peacefully secede, the use of force would have been unconstitutional, but they did not.

 

Sorry if I missed the answers to my questions. What are the latest estimates of people who want secession? How many are white conservatives? Is that number large enough to entertain this hypothetical scenario?

 

Oh yeah ... Been to Red River, NM quite a few times.
That reminds me though ... Liberal California has a satellite community in Taos, NM ... We might have to have a chat with them.

 

If you don't have anything intelligent or substantive to say, then direct your commentary towards someone else.

 

I seem to recall reading South Carolina had already seceded. December 20, 1860. N C'est Pas?

 

If you 'think' you can/will actually direct the manner in which I express myself here... then you aren't perceiving things as they truly are.

Please, understand that.

 

Yes, they had. The Confederacy was formed in February 1861. The Battle of Fort Sumter happened in April 1861. While Buchanan was still President, there was no war because he wanted to avoid bloodshed. It was Lincoln who entered office and started the war.

Neither were the American revolutionaries, according to your logic.

Then the American revolution was a "rebellion" against the lawful monarchy of Great Britain, right?

Secession is simply an act of withdrawal. How could that be anything but "peaceful"?

 

Just don't expect me to respond to your mindless blather then.

 

Thank you for the heads-up.

Peace.