Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Best Defense of Southern Secession I have ever read.

Based on the uncertain equations of Heisenberg, had the South prevailed, there would have been a Hitler and he would have made good the genocide of European Jews and the nation of Israel would not have been created. Prophetically, the Middle East would still be a killing field like it has always been.

Looking forward, the voluntary re-alignment of the several States whose citizens agree with the Foundational principles of our Consitutional Republic, offers the best option for a peaceful resolution of our fundamental differences.

We don't need to "refight" the War of 1860 -intentional terminology to remove ideological arguments of form over substance- but we need to accept that the ideological differences between freedom and the concept of inelienable individual rights of citizens vs the collectivist view of the greater good of a society of subjects subordinating the individual's rights, is a gulf we can't bridge through negotiated political solutions.

Dissolution of a compact which has now produced a tyranical central government is the right of free citizens. So called 'secession' is one approach that can be considered.

Note that many such dissolutions have taken place over the last 50 years throughout the world, many with great attendant strife, yielding better alignment of their respective peoples.

Why? A secessionist started it, like always. Then you wannabe Johnny Rebs go through the same whine and pine until those living in reality can't take any more of it and pipe in. Maybe someday more will get their heads out of their azzes and realize the chit they've been smelling's been their own, but I don't figure it will be many or soon. If I couldn't get through the day without blaming something that happened 150 years ago for all the perceived injustice I could dream up and pile up, I'd leave for greener pastures or suck a glock. What a waste of energy and time. Truly.

Since 1776 it was obvious there was going to be a war. The elites of the time had too much money tied up in their "property" to ever give it up. Whether it was the South starting the shooting and the Civil War, or whether they had split off and later had a devastating internal war or simply a later war between the new southern states and the Union as anti-slavery forces smuggled weapons to the slaves, it was going to happen.

Blaming the North is silly.

Lots of "what ifs" here, but simple logic tells me a UNITED States of America was a better thing that two separate countries, one agrarian and the other industrialized. And how about the West? who would have laid claim to the remaining territories? All speculation, but as far as I am concerned, I wish the war had never happened.

The North made the bed, now everyone has to sleep in it. Isn't it wonderful.

Good point regarding Lenin and the aftermath, but frankly Germany lost that war the second the failed to take Paris and the Royal Navy strangled the country. After 1 August 1914, not a SINGLE merchant ship left or entered German ports and they were not self sufficient.

The only thing I'm butthurt about is how fu*king stupid and liberal Yankees are TODAY.

They are leading the charge to destroying the nation. Only now the Yankees have California on their side.

Well said and spot on.

I don't want to play the alternate universe theories about if Hitler would have killed jews regardless, but I hate to point out the obvious,

The slaves were given independence(and squandered it).

The Confederacy was essentially entangled, in perpetuity, in a crap federal government.

So why can't the 'south' complain about the consequence of 'their' actions, under those circumstances?

True, but if the US had been truly neutral, Britain and France would have exhausted themselves as well. They could not have kept it going for so long without US money and material.

The republic of sovereign states came to an end in 1865 and was replaced by a democracy....and a democracy is the stepping stone to socialism....that we are on the verge of today.

Explain to me, how the destruction of the republic, is considered "winning"?

Lincoln and Obama have been the two biggest destroyers of the constitution.....no doubt. Andy3

I have said that many times. You can't imagine the hell i catch from some. As soon as they are asked to defend their position slavery is the only answer they have. Taught in northern schools they have never been exposed to all the facts. Just one example of the sorry state of education. I was fortunate to have teachers who strayed off the reservation from time to time.

The Tenth Amendment died then. Slowly other parts of the Bill of Rights are being chipped away at, the Second is firmly in the crosshairs now.

Everyone wants to blame the civil war but in fact the industrial revolution was the implement that changed the way things were far more than anything in history had before it, worldwide. It made incredibly rich people and that upended both the Constitution and how power would be centered. But keep on fighting that war on here and elsewhere. It's what they want. Keep the little people bickering about nonsense of the past so they can't focus on the real enemy that lives among them now.

So if the South would have won, then Germany would have won WW1. If that happened we might not have had a Hitlary and so on. Not a bad thing.

RickyD, The "nonsense of the past", as you put it, got us to where we are today. Prime example of repeating ignored history. Just a crying shame to watch us follow the lead of Italy, Greece, Spain, and the rest of Europe.....eagerly. Andy3

Don't believe for a moment those countries aren't also wallowing in their history both flawed and magnificent, unable to move forward into the hard realities of the present, just as we are. And we can't learn from that, as we witness it but prefer to re-fight a war, every participant would have strongly preferred to avoid once involved. Communal insanity is still insane.

As the campfire norm Scott, you're making generalizations because it's easier than thinking through the problem. It is not north vs south, it is rural vs urban and has been the last 50 years.

Atlanta, Memphis and Miami are just as f'ed up as NY City, Chicago and Seattle. My experience is that those in the rural areas are much more on the conservative side than the urban. We're not in a north south war for our culture and our personal independence anymore this time it's much harder to define than a line on a map in southern PA. In fact, there are no lines and there of many of us that live far urban more than others that are on the side of independence and personal freedom.

I was about to say pretty much the same thing. Jefferson said "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Boy was he right as usual.

Urbanization changes peoples outlook and I believe tends to make them tend less towards self reliance. Take the depression for instance. My Granddaddy raised a family during that time and never once had to stand in a bread line because he lived in the country. He could raise hogs, chickens, a big garden, hunt, fish, etc which allowed him to survive. A guy in a similar situation in a city at the time was pretty much screwed if he could not find work.

You are absolutely right about the effedupness of large Southern Cities such as the cancer in my home state that is Atlanta. The only difference is that they have not yet metastasized to critical mass but they are getting there. The reason for that could be that we lost the civil war and development of the south was set back probably 50-75 years.