Red State Blue State

[highnote]

Looking at the Red states and Blue states -- I got to thinking... (dangerous, I know)...

Because the U.S. is so divided, it might have been better if the southern states would have seceded from the union. The North should have peacefully let the South leave. Think of all the soldiers who died needlessly. Slavery would have ended with the coming of the industrial revolution. Slavery ended in Brazil and it didn't take a civil war to end it.

Think about how government expanded since Lincoln's Civil War -- he even suspended Habeas Corpus. It is said Lincoln really didn't care about slavery -- he just wanted to create an insurrection with slaves so that it would help weaken the South.

Secession would have allowed the South to elect officials that would have moved the confederacy in the direction they desired. And the northern states would have moved in the direction they desired.

There would have been much less gridlock in a country made up of only Northern states and only Southern states. For 140 years since the War Between the States the north and the south have held different beliefs. Why should the people of the North force their beliefs on Southerners and vice-versa? This happens now.

By the way, it was more than a war between the states... it was a revolution -- just like 1776 was a revolution. The South wanted to break away from the North and the Union just like the U.S. wanted to break from England. Thomas Jefferson probably would have been proud of the South.

When you look at the Red states and the Blue states it seems obvious to me that this country would be better off if it was split into two countries that were trading partners rather than to be stuck in eternal gridlock as one country.

I am beginning to think the wrong side may have won the war between the states.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe we should just nuke the south... :rolleyes:

They're all racists anyway, right?

[highnote]

Maybe we should just nuke the south... :rolleyes:

They're all racists anyway, right?


What the F--- are you talking about?

[PaceAdvantage]

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

[JustRalph]

Maybe we should just nuke the south... :rolleyes:

They're all racists anyway, right?

I am dying to read the unedited post ........... :lol: :lol:

[highnote]

You know exactly what I'm talking about.


I am dead serious and you are mocking me. Would you care to explain what you think I'm talking about?

[PaceAdvantage]

I am dead serious and you are mocking me. Would you care to explain what you think I'm talking about?Sadly, I'm not mocking you at all.

[highnote]

Sadly, I'm not mocking you at all.


Then you need to go back and re-read what I read, because I do not see anything about what I wrote that should bother you.

It may not be the "northern" view, but it is a rational view.

[highnote]

I am dying to read the unedited post ........... :lol: :lol:


There was no unedited post. Everything I wrote is here. Everything PA wrote is here.

I am trying to understand what I wrote in this thread that has him rolling his eyes. Hopefully, he will explain himself.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why do you think this great country would be better off with half of it eliminated? What is wrong with gridlock sometimes.

Is it not just another fine check and balance? Wasn't this country BUILT on checks and balances?

[highnote]

Why do you think this great country would be better off with half of it eliminated? What is wrong with gridlock sometimes.

Is it not just another fine check and balance? Wasn't this country BUILT on checks and balances?

The problem is, you, like me, were taught U.S. history from a Northern perspective.

Half of it would NOT be eliminated unless it fell into the ocean. So that's a ridiculous notion. They would become two countries and they would be the world's largest trading partners and they would be governed according to the philosophy of a super-majority of their citizens.

Look at the map of red state/blue state. It's obvious there are fundamental philosophical differences. The South never wanted to fight the North. The South wanted nothing to do with the North and just wanted to leave!

Conservatives want smaller government. What has happened to gov't since the North stopped the South from seceding? Gov't has ballooned out of control. Now the U.S. has turned from a confederation of sovereign states into a super-state and the individual states have become weakened and really nothing more than tax districts.

What have we gotten from the super-state? The Federal Reserve Act, the Income Tax, Prohibition, two World Wars, the New Deal, The Great Society, the eternal War on Terror, and fiscal irresponsibility. Oh... and $2 billion dollars spent on this election.

[newtothegame]

The problem is, you, like me, were taught U.S. history from a Northern perspective.

Half of it would NOT be eliminated unless it fell into the ocean. So that's a ridiculous notion. They would become two countries and they would be the world's largest trading partners and they would be governed according to the philosophy of a super-majority of their citizens.

Look at the map of red state/blue state. It's obvious there are fundamental philosophical differences. The South never wanted to fight the North. The South wanted nothing to do with the North and just wanted to leave!

Conservatives want smaller government. What has happened to gov't since the North stopped the South from seceding? Gov't has ballooned out of control. Now the U.S. has turned from a confederation of sovereign states into a super-state and the individual states have become weakened and really nothing more than tax districts.

What have we gotten from the super-state? The Federal Reserve Act, the Income Tax, Prohibition, two World Wars, the New Deal, The Great Society, the eternal War on Terror, and fiscal irresponsibility. Oh... and $2 billion dollars spent on this election.
In theory, that all sounds good.
Major problem though, when you look at the blue (est) of states, they run very large deficits and have some major problems. This is not to say that red states do not have problems as well but, there is no arguing that red states truly are more self sufficient and WANT to be as you said.
Ca had a few cities recently file bankruptcy, look at detroit, NY is having budget issues etc etc.
So, in the red states, what could the blue states possibly trade to them as these loving trading partners you mention??? Debt???
You see, in red states, the belief is that each man work to carry his own weight (conservative views). So either they would carry their weight or move to a blue state. Blue states believe in nanny state taking care of people.....so where would the blue states revenue come from????
Trust me when I tell you this highnote, blue states do not want conservatism to go away....they need conservatism to continue to pay for the liberal way.
Need further proof? How is it that conservatives donate more to charity then liberals? I mean liberals are all about wealth redistribuition (as long as it isnt their own)....
I seriously wonder how liberals would ever take care of themselves given your scenario.....:faint:

[PaceAdvantage]

Somebody had an argument here many moons ago (I think it was Suff), and he said that one of the reasons Blue States are in financial trouble is because they help subsidize red states. I don't recall the details of his argument, whether it is via over-taxation or whatnot, but this may or may not account for the reason why blue states seem to be in more fiscal peril than red states.

[JustRalph]

Somebody had an argument here many moons ago (I think it was Suff), and he said that one of the reasons Blue States are in financial trouble is because they help subsidize red states. I don't recall the details of his argument, whether it is via over-taxation or whatnot, but this may or may not account for the reason why blue states seem to be in more fiscal peril than red states.


He was right. In some ways. Most red states take more federal money out than they put in. But this is primarily due to the Federal Government basically forcing them to take funds. The largest example is in the highway funding of many large red states. The Feds provide so many ncentives that the red states would be crazy not to take the cash, or they are bribed into taking money for some things, so they can get money for other things.

It's a big circle jerk.

But it's a disgrace that Red states go along. An example is all the hell Ohio and Wisconsin got for turning down high speed rail money two years ago. That costs thse states jobs and ancillary contracts etc. but it saved them money long term because they don't have to maintain a system tht would never make money.

This is one example

[newtothegame]

I would love to see any documentation showing where blue states subsidize red. What I do know is that the nanny state agenda ultimately breaks down.
It's a fiscal problem that the left has yet to either figure out or dont want to figure out.

[newtothegame]

He was right. In some ways. Most red states take more federal money out than they put in. But this is primarily due to the Federal Government basically forcing them to take funds. The largest example is in the highway funding of many large red states. The Feds provide so many ncentives that the red states would be crazy not to take the cash, or they are bribed into taking money for some things, so they can get money for other things.

It's a big circle jerk.

But it's a disgrace that Red states go along. An example is all the hell Ohio and Wisconsin got for turning down high speed rail money two years ago. That costs thse states jobs and ancillary contracts etc. but it saved them money long term because they don't have to maintain a system tht would never make money.

This is one example
Ralph, I agree with your post but, I am not sure that's a "blue" state subsidizing red state. That's the government, which is supposed to be neither blue nor red.
You're right though about forcing it. Recently here in Louisiana, a small parish (county) was threatened by the feds with money. Ultimately, after several fines from the government, the parish caved in.

[Tom]

Because the U.S. is so divided, it might have been better if the southern states would have seceded from the union.

Within two years, the libs would be tunneling into the other side.
You must understand, libs need successful people to leech off of.
Libs do not know what success is. Only stealing! :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Of course, if we just stopped federalizing everything possible and let the country operate as intended as often as humanly possibly, much of this would be moot. The more we centralize the role and impact of government, the more we are divided, unless we all just play good citizen and bend over for whatever each installment has in store for all of us. This is why I don't understand big government liberals - all of their fears of conservativism are realized mainly because of big government conservatives.

[highnote]

In theory, that all sounds good.
Major problem though, when you look at the blue (est) of states, they run very large deficits and have some major problems.

Large deficit in the blue states would not be the red states' problem if the country was split in two.

So, in the red states, what could the blue states possibly trade to them as these loving trading partners you mention??? Debt???

Same thing the U.S. trades to the rest of the world -- military hardware, tools and other manufactured goods, autos, even agricultural products. And if you want to buy blue state bonds and trust that you'll get paid back in inflated blue dollars that is up to red states to decide.



So either they would carry their weight or move to a blue state. Blue states believe in nanny state taking care of people.....so where would the blue states revenue come from????

Same place it does now -- either excess trade or taxes on its citizensor on imports. Blue state revenue would not be the red states' concern.


I seriously wonder how liberals would ever take care of themselves given your scenario.....:faint:

Again, that would not be red states' concern.

[highnote]

Within two years, the libs would be tunneling into the other side.
You must understand, libs need successful people to leech off of.
Libs do not know what success is. Only stealing! :lol:


Yeah, they might be tunneling to the other side, but the crucial thing you're missing is how citizens of red states would handle that scenario. ;)

[highnote]

Given the number of secession petitions that are being floated around, I stand by my assertion that the U.S. would have been better off if the South had seceded causing a split into 2 independent countries 150 years ago.

It is ironic that the North was willing to fight a revolutionary war for independence from England, but was willing to fight AGAINST the South in their revolutionary war for independence.

Also ironic is that Puerto Rico wants to become a state as other states are trying to leave.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/secede-from-the-union_n_2126467.html

A handful of Republican governors are taking a stand after residents in more than 40 states filed secession petitions with the White House website's "We the People" program.

"I don’t think that’s a valid option for Tennessee," Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) said on Tuesday, the Tennessean reports. "I don’t think we’ll be seceding."

A petition to secede submitted by Jason B. (no last name provided) of Harrogate, Tenn. surpassed the 25,000 signatures needed within 30 days to undergo White House review.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) also signaled opposition to a secession petition filed by a resident in his state on Tuesday.

Alabama Live reports that the Republican governor's spokeswoman, Jennifer Ardis, said, "Governor Bentley believes in one nation under God. While there is frustration with the federal government, Governor Bentley believes that states can be great laboratories of change."

[JustRalph]

One million people in 33 states won't get shit done.

Number one reason it will never happen, U.S. won't give back Social Security funds.........I say that in jest, but I guarantee it would stop any movement

[highnote]

One million people in 33 states won't get shit done.

Number one reason it will never happen, U.S. won't give back Social Security funds.........I say that in jest, but I guarantee it would stop any movement


You are right. That is a one big reason.

Governors also won't back secession because it might be political suicide.

Now that Gov. Perry from Texas got a taste of the "Road to the White House" he is not going to be the advocate for secession that he once was.

Maybe this country is in need of a revolution? It's been 50 years since the Civil Rights and Equal Rights and Women's Rights revolutions.

People need something to rally around.

[Lefty]

highnote, Lincoln was right, you are wrong. If we had allowed the South to secede slavery would have persisted in the South for God know how long?
Slaves would have escaped to the North. The South would have objected.
Travel and commerce would have been severely limited. And ultimately there would have been a war anyway. Remember, "A house divided cannot stand."
A wise man, Lincoln.

[Steve R]

Given the number of secession petitions that are being floated around, I stand by my assertion that the U.S. would have been better off if the South had seceded causing a split into 2 independent countries 150 years ago.

It is ironic that the North was willing to fight a revolutionary war for independence from England, but was willing to fight AGAINST the South in their revolutionary war for independence.

Also ironic is that Puerto Rico wants to become a state as other states are trying to leave.
In Texas v White (1969) the Supreme Court said that unilateral secession was unconstitutional. However, the decision also reads (referring to Texas' desire to secede): "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States".

So, in fact, secession is possible in two ways. Now consider this scenario. A dozen states in the South elect to secede with massive popular support. There are two pathways. The other states can consent to secession or the secessionists can revolt.

So here's the question. Would the U.S. government actually initiate a second Civil War to preserve the "union"? Would it subject its citizens to the mass slaughter that would follow? It would essentially destroy the country and its position and influence in the world. Regardless of the outcome, the already existing regional animosity would increase and be a source of friction for centuries. Another Civil War is a no win situation for everyone. Frankly, I don't believe anyone has the stomach for another brother-against-brother catastrophe.

IOW, if the movement is strong enough (which it won't be), I believe it would ultimately succeed by consent. The alternative is unthinkable.

[highnote]

highnote, Lincoln was right, you are wrong. If we had allowed the South to secede slavery would have persisted in the South for God know how long?
Slaves would have escaped to the North. The South would have objected.
Travel and commerce would have been severely limited. And ultimately there would have been a war anyway. Remember, "A house divided cannot stand."
A wise man, Lincoln.


I disagree. I think war would have been avoided. The 620,000 people died needlessly in the Civil War would have been saved. Slavery ended in Brazil around 1888 without a revolution. Well, that's not quite true... the industrial revolution helped end slavery and it would have helped end slavery in the U.S.

I suppose one might argue that the War between the States may have helped end slavery sooner in Brazil. That's worth contemplating. I still believe slavery would have been abolished eventually and without the need for fighting a war.

Slavery was legally ended nationwide on May 13 by the Lei Áurea ("Golden Law") of 1888, by a legal act of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. In fact, it was an institution in decline by this time (since the 1880s the country began to attract European immigrant labor instead).

Lincoln didn't really care about slavery. He wanted the slaves to revolt and cause an insurrection in the south in order to weaken the south and help the north win. This was a pure power play.

Abraham Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in both public and private.[1] Initially, Lincoln expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party platform in 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. Lincoln believed that the extension of slavery in the South, Mid-west, and Western lands would inhibit "free labor on free soil". In the 1850's, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one; he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[2]

If slavery was a big issue to northerners why didn't they put a stop to it 100 years earlier? Why didn't Lincoln oppose slavery earlier?

[highnote]

IOW, if the movement is strong enough (which it won't be), I believe it would ultimately succeed by consent. The alternative is unthinkable.

All good points. You're right. A war between the states in this day and age would be a great tragedy and unthinkable.

However, if the majority of people in a state wanted to secede then it could be done peacefully. If S. Carolina citizens want to secede who has the right to tell them they cannot?

The other difficulty today is that so many people with different views live in the north and south. It would be hard to get everyone in a given region to embrace the same ideology.

[Steve R]

All good points. You're right. A war between the states in this day and age would be a great tragedy and unthinkable.

However, if the majority of people in a state wanted to secede then it could be done peacefully. If S. Carolina citizens want to secede who has the right to tell them they cannot?

The other difficulty today is that so many people with different views live in the north and south. It would be hard to get everyone in a given region to embrace the same ideology.
Not everyone in one region will ever embrace the same ideology, but that would be true in all instances of secession, and in the last two decades their have been a host of successful secessions. I wonder what the South Sudanese who were against secession did after their split. Did they just move to north to Sudan? I'll wager there were quite a few Rebels who fought on the Yankee side and vice versa after Fort Sumter.

[highnote]

Not everyone in one region will ever embrace the same ideology, but that would be true in all instances of secession, and in the last two decades their have been a host of successful secessions. I wonder what the South Sudanese who were against secession did after their split. Did they just move to north to Sudan? I'll wager there were quite a few Rebels who fought on the Yankee side and vice versa after Fort Sumter.


What did the Loyalists do after 1776?

[JustRalph]

If slavery was a big issue to northerners why didn't they put a stop to it 100 years earlier? Why didn't Lincoln oppose slavery earlier?

The original Declaration of Independence outlawed slavery. It did so until Adams and Franklin convinced Jefferson that Virginia and NC would never sign on. Virginia was the only colony that had a standing Army of any size. Therefore Va got its way.

Today the only way a State could leave the Union would be with consent. No State possesses the tools to forcefully leave. The U.S. military could take over any State it wanted in 48 hours.

Today's military isn't smart enough to have a conscious. They would fire on Americans in a heartbeat.

[Steve R]

The original Declaration of Independence outlawed slavery. It did so until Adams and Franklin convinced Jefferson that Virginia and NC would never sign on. Virginia was the only colony that had a standing Army of any size. Therefore Va got its way.

Today the only way a State could leave the Union would be with consent. No State possesses the tools to forcefully leave. The U.S. military could take over any State it wanted in 48 hours.

Today's military isn't smart enough to have a conscious. They would fire on Americans in a heartbeat.
Almost half of all domestic military bases (Army, Marine and Air Force) in the US are located in a dozen or so southern states. I'm guessing a large percentage of soldiers also come from those states. You may think some guy from Georgia is simply going to take up arms against citizens of his own state. I don't and certainly not under conditions of revolution. And I doubt many soldiers from the North would feel comfortable with it either. It wouldn't be at all like taking out "ragheads", now would it? And just because the federal government sits in Washington, D.C. doesn't guarantee physical control of most of the available military equipment or the support of all the military leadership. You may recall this has all happened before. In any case, if the secessionist movement ever became as strong as it was in 1861, anything other than consent would be insane. OTOH, the American "my dick is bigger than yours" mentality that pervades so much of the culture might just eliminate reason and lead to a bloodbath of unimaginable magnitude and pretty much sweep the country off the international playing field for a very long time.

[highnote]

The original Declaration of Independence outlawed slavery. It did so until Adams and Franklin convinced Jefferson that Virginia and NC would never sign on. Virginia was the only colony that had a standing Army of any size. Therefore Va got its way.

Today the only way a State could leave the Union would be with consent. No State possesses the tools to forcefully leave. The U.S. military could take over any State it wanted in 48 hours.

Today's military isn't smart enough to have a conscious. They would fire on Americans in a heartbeat.


Could the U.S. military occupy all the states that wanted to secede? The problem for the military would be that behind every tree and rock would be a secessionist with a rifle.

[Tom]

Yeah, they might be tunneling to the other side, but the crucial thing you're missing is how citizens of red states would handle that scenario. ;)

NRA.

[JustRalph]

Could the U.S. military occupy all the states that wanted to secede? The problem for the military would be that behind every tree and rock would be a secessionist with a rifle.

We don't have the balls to pull off the behind every tree tactic. They wouldn't have to occupy every state. One state at a time would suffice.

[highnote]

Let's hope it never happens, but if it did, there would be a lot of pissed off people who would form a resistance.

It wouldn't matter if it was the U.S. military trying to occupy a state or some foreign army trying to occupy a state, I don't think any occupying force can remain in a country indefinitely and beat a nation into submission. The Taliban are still operating in Afghanistan. It only took Germany 60 years to become the dominate force in Europe after being crushed in WWII. France won the Battle of Hastings in 1066, yet, England is still independent.

If people of a state want a smaller government then a great way get it is to secede from the Union.

[highnote]

Ron Paul on Secession:

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-secession-civil-war-maybe-not-150021276.html

Outgoing Republican U.S. representative Ron Paul has waded into the secession debate, saying that states have the right to leave the Union, and that the Civil War may not have been “right.”

The libertarian politician made the comments on his official House website.

“While I wouldn’t hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union,” Paul said.

“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.

“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.

Paul didn’t bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War on his official House website, but he has discussed it in the past.

In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.

“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.

In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.

“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.

Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.

“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.

[highnote]

Looks like secession is gaining momentum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html?hp


HOUSTON — In the weeks since President Obama’s re-election, Republicans around the country have been wondering how to proceed. Some conservatives in Texas have been asking a far more pointed question: how to secede.

LM Otero/Associated Press

Larry Scott Kilgore announced that he was running for governor in 2014 and would legally change his name to Larry Secede Kilgore, with Secede in capital letters.


Secession fever has struck parts of Texas, which Mitt Romney won by nearly 1.3 million votes.