This Country Needs to Split

The make up is pretty simple... and we give Hawaii back to Hawaiians, while Alaska stays with the Republic of America.



The new Socialist States of Pacifica and New England can create their own new Constitutions without 2nd Amendment Rights, or 1st Amendment Rights, or 4th Amendment Rights, as they have shown not to want those Amendments. Hell, they can do what they want. The Socialist territories have become like England was to the U.S. Colonies, where they want to tax, rule, and lord over the rest of Americans in lands they don't understand, know, or live in.

 

Did we indeed? I guess I missed that. But here's a bit of reality for you, if you want to talk about poverty and murderous abuse:.

[ SOURCE ]

All the white man's fault, of course.

 

The neutrality of the military is key. Keeping that, means following a legal path so long is it is open. Although every patriot should be well armed, we do NOT want a shoot-out with anyone. But a peaceful separation will be eased if we are determined, and determination is never unarmed. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

We had a kind of happy medium for a long time. The better ideas of the 'Left' -- loosely speaking -- were implemented, and accepted by conservatives after some grumbling: women's suffrage, social security, Black equality, enforcing the separation of church and state in schools. The main change which has not been accepted is abortion rights. But in many many ways, the US became more and more 'liberal' ... as did other countries: for example, ending the criminalization of homosexuality.

At the same time, we remained committed to the free market, and both liberals and conservatives basically agreed on foreign policy (rightly or wrongly). We quarelled, yes. We lurched towards something pretty dark, with McCarthy, but we pulled back. We underwent a deep strain, with Vietnam, but a Republican president finally got us out. We went to the moon!

But in all that time, we were all Americans. I know that my fellow conservatives won't believe this, but even the American Communists loved America, in their own way. It was deep cultural thing. I don't think white people really appreciate what it took for Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Japanese Americans, to stay loyal to this country, which treated them so badly. But they did. Somehow, intuitively, they knew it would change. And it did.

Here's a poem by a Black Communist poet, Langston Hughes: there are two voices speaking -- second one is italicized:

"Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed --
Let it be that great strong land of love.
..................(It never was America to me)
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
...................(I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
....................I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
....................I am the red man driven from the land,
....................I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek --
....................and finding only the same old stupid plan
....................of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....................O, let America be America again ---
.....................The land that never has been yet ---
.....................And yet must be -- the land where every man is free ...
.....................O yes,
....................... say it plain
......................America never was America to me,
......................And yet I swear this oath,
......................America will be!

And we came so far!!! If I had told Comrade Hughes that in one more lifetime, 73 years, there would be a Black President ... would he have
believed me?

But ... that spirit is passing away fast among a section of the population, our future leaders, and that section is growing. I
n the 1930s, trade unionists -- including those led by the Communist Party, which played a major role in organizing the CIO -- carried the American flag in their marches.

Now we see the American flag pulled down, literally, replaced by a foreign one ... we see it burned, we see it lowered at college campuses, we see a painting featuring George Washington -- pained by a Communist in the 1930s! -- painted over. This trend is growing, it's not a flash in the pan. It has been and is being nurtured in many of our elite institutions of higher education, where our future governing class is trained, and not only there. Old-fashioned 'leftism' has been replaced by identity politics, which replaces the feeling of being members of a common nation, America, with something else. The traditional committment of the Left to rational argument and civil liberties is dying.

We're not at the end yet, but we're going there, and there is absolutely no reason to think this will somehow mysteriously stop.
There is no divine power that will intervene.

We've got to save ourselves.

 

Prove that

 

The north was comprised of liberals. The south was conservative christians. You don't get to change history to suit your agenda.

 

then why is the right so butt hurt that righties have to create threads about Hillary? Get over it.

 

You haven't a clue who side I'm on. Just more assumptions from the always Trump the clown crowd.

 

Civil wars with centralized commands, clear territorial claims and well established fronts is not the norm. By your logic the Syrian Civil War isn't happening because everyone is too mixed up together.

 

ROFL!

Liberals vs. Christians is your Civil War Assessment? WTF?

 

You guys didn't spend the Obama years complaining every day about George Bush, blaming him every time someone tripped on a banana peel?

 

I didn't. Go call out somebody else.

 

You don't even know why the NRA was founded? Talk about hilarious.

 

The blues in between won't go with your silliness.

 

Yup if someone does not like it here go to Russia. I understand that you can be glowing there after the nuclear explosion on the White Sea.

 

We tried separation during the 19th century and that did not go well for the rebels did it.

 

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
--"Brutus", 1787

 

You must stop reading and believing all this Dystopian books or at least realize that they are fiction.

 

No Treason by Lysander Spooner

The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that – in theory, at least, if not in practice – our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

Yes, and after the compassionate "liberals" in the north were done ravaging the south, they proceeded to "liberate" the native Americans from their lands across the western US. Such humanitarians, they were.

 

You are so naive.

 

Let's return to the articles of confederation, where each state was independent. That way, each state can follow its own destiny without interference from the others. And states can still cooperate with one another whenever common interests present themselves. There is really no good reason for the states to be "united" under a single government, unless you consider lust for power to be a good reason.

 

Finland is all white, no diversity, so why that particular comparison?

It's nonsensical in any case. Based on the original post, this entire thread was started by someone so far to the right that he has no real knowledge about the left.

 

Liberals have literally thrown a 3 year tantrum over losing an election. They have protested, assaulted people, had riots, tried to overthrow the duly elected president, etc, etc. This is not some fiction book. What were the idiots calling themselves for a while, the 'resistance'? Resistance to what exactly? An election? A Republican? People not wanting their socialist agenda?

 

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States

...Suppose... that substantially all of the merchants, money lenders, security holders, manufacturers, shippers, capitalists, and financiers and their professional associates are to be found on one side in support of the Constitution and that substantially all or the major portion of the opposition came from the non-slave-holding farmers and the debtors - would it not be pretty conclusively demonstrated that our fundamental law was not the product of an abstraction known as the "whole people," but of a group of economic interests which must have expected beneficial results from its adoption? Obviously all the facts here desired cannot be discovered, but the data presented in the following chapters bear out the latter hypothesis, and thus a reasonable presumption in favour of the theory is created.