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

one thing the south does best is embrace the butthurt.

but they've been doing it for 150 years...

You mean Ohio south? They don't have a problem with me here. My employer is actually pleading with me to stay.

It saw the end of the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs as well. Those two families kept a lid on central and Eastern Europe for nearly four centuries before that. It was the destruction of the old order and the end of the greatest sustained period of progress and freedom we've yet seen.

Before the war, a man could have boarded a train in London, and with the exception of having to get on a ferry to cross the channel, ridden it to Moscow in a few days without ever having to go through customs and without a passport. In a week or two he could have been to the Pacific in Vladisvostok or in India or China. The war ended all that.

I think that Northerners move south for two primary reasons, warmer winter weather and because the cost of living is generally less, so their income/pensions will go farther.

People who move, regardless of where they move, geographically speaking, often want to "improve" the places they move too. Many of the people who move to acreages in the country around here prohibit hunting on their ground and then complain about being over-run by deer that eat their shrubs.

I was raised in NH, but have no interest in living there ever again. I have only minimal interest in living farther south than southern MO or northern AR. I think that I'd like to live around Mountain Home, AR, but my Wife has zero interest in either AR or MO, so we'll probably retire to our home in Edwards, CO, where there is much more snow and a longer winter than we have in Omaha.

The Dred Scott decision wasnt about states rights, it was about a Federal entity superceding the democratic process in states, just like whats going on today.

Talk about carpetbagging.....this right of state sovereignty was shot right there.

Pretty safe assumption people from most states at the time and today dont like being told that their government of the people is being superceded by a minority or people that arent even supposed to be there....gets even worse at gunpoint.

The powder keg now is 1,000 times worse, IMO, and the Civil War started with politicians sitting on their ass and creating law in a fashion un-Constitutionally....in a [bleep] political courtroom.

Gee, that historically ends well.

Thats right.
Virginia would not participate in an unholy war of invasion and conquest; same same for the entire upper south.

And folks are not remembering that many of the Northern states that invaded the south were slave holding states, including Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, DC, and even New Jersey had a tiny slave population.

The death of the 10th ammendment was the death of freedom, and the consequences are just as bad for whites as for decent blacks.

Nope, that ain't it at all...

The Founding Fathers were brilliant men. Don't you wonder where it all went wrong? I say it was Lincoln. A tyrannical central government was not the dream child of Thomas Jefferson or Madison.

In the south we are forward looking. We want our freedom and we want a just society under rule of law with checks and balances and the preservation of our people, our faith, our customs and culture, kith and kin.

Interposition, nullification, secession, was and continues to be the REAL solution to a whole host of problems we face today.

For point of reference; Maryland was literally kept in the Union at gun point. The legislature was arrested, and the cannons of Fort McHenry were turned toward the city of Baltimore with orders FROM LINCOLN to fire on the civilian population at the slightest hint that they were not following his orders.

It started going wrong before Lincoln. Andrew Jackson's unconstitutional and immoral actions established a precedent of a POTUS defying the SCOTUS and acting as emperor. Lincoln simply tore up the Constitution in order to force states to remain in a Union that they wanted to leave; against the reserved right of secession and the Bill of Rights. It kept going further wrong once FDR fully embraces socialism, and LBJ sold out posterity for the sake of a political party. The Rs joined in, gleefully, when W rammed through the "Patriot Act" <spit> and created DHS. Then came Hussein, and if we're not REALLY damned careful, Hitlery.

It ain't the weather for me. I hate this weather down here. It ain't even fit for humanity. A lot of you took it as I'm condemning the modern day south when all I was condemning was slavery. I will condemn your weather though.

I had a hard time sorting it out and it took me along time. DiLorenzo's books helped me out. I call his work the Rosetta Stone of the Civil War. Recognizing that Lincoln was a tyrant is the key to understanding it all.

From wiki:

Lincoln Unmasked


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe







Author

Thomas DiLorenzo



Country

United States



Language

English



Genre

Politics, American Civil War



Publisher

Crown Forum




Publication date

October 10, 2006



Media type

Hardcover, Paperback, ebook



Pages

224



ISBN

978-0-307-33841-9



OCLC

67727894




Dewey Decimal

973.7092 22



LC Class

E457.2 .D55 2006



Preceded by

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War


Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe[1] is Thomas DiLorenzo's follow-up to The Real Lincoln, a book highly critical of the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

Synopsis[edit]

In his reappraisal of the famed president, DiLorenzo is highly critical of Lincoln. Within the book he argues that states within the union had the right at the time of the American Civil War to secede and that the more centralized government that emerged after the war was incompatible with democracy. DiLorenzo also claims that most scholars of the Civil War are biased in their approach to the history because, as DiLorenzo reminds the reader, "in war the victors get to write the history". Dilorenzo also argues that Lincoln was opposed to racial equality, and that many abolitionists, including Lysander Spooner, bitterly hated him.[2]

Criticisms[edit]

Several reviewers of the book have concluded that while there is room for discrepancy, the overall interpretation of President Lincoln by other historians has sided towards truth. One such critic is Justin Ewers, a senior editor at U.S. News & World Report, who reviewing the book for The Washington Post noted: "Of course, Lincoln's presidency had its dark side. Most infamously, the Great Emancipator suspended habeas corpus in 1861–62, allowing the indefinite detention of citizens without trial. Still, DiLorenzo's work is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis." [3]

Other reviewers, like Publishers Weekly, while calling the book a "laughable screed," suggest that DiLorenzo's main target are "scholars who dominate American universities (most notably Eric Foner)".[4

Very well said.

Tell me, do states/cities get better when more and more Yankees and Californians migrate to them?

You can say it as you wish and no doubt cities are liberal shietholes, but I find MANY more liberal idiots living in towns that end with 'kill than you'd ever thing about in the south.


Another FACT, all those WONDERFUL Yankee conservatives are giving the LIBERAL political, right grabbing machine, LOTS of money in taxes EVERY YEAR.

I ain't that smart, but if a guy is sending a check to ISIS every month, he'd be called out of helping the enemy.

So, please, keep sending your money to liberals that are destroying this country.

My ancestors owned slaves.....big deal, it was legal at the time. They also fought for the Confederacy, and I'm rather proud of that legacy. The one thing that always gotten me, is that it was the New England based shipping that brought the slaves here from Africa, yet it's always the South that gets chastised.

The thing that always got me is HOW FU(KING stupid Yankees are.

They are the LAZY bastards. Got off the boat and said, we ain't going anywhere and they let all the BRAVE men go west and south to claim more for YANKEES.

That's why when Yankees like Pugs and Moose, pound on their chests, it's never not funny.

I can't tell you how many go times I've seen conservative Yankees on the 'Fire and from RURAL areas proclaim how AR15's and hi capacity mags should be banned.

As usual Scott, it's nice to see someone so comfortable in a world where they don't need to think complex thoughts and can live in the attention span of twitter sound bites to shape their life.

Bet I had more relatives fight and die for the CSA than you did. Also had quite a few own a fair number of slaves, at least according to the wills I have. They were proud folks who fought for something they believed in. Pride often leads people to making poor decisions.

Having lived in the south and visited many relatives in Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas for the last 52 years you may find me down for a weekend visiting or a week of hunting but I can assure you you'll never have to deal with me living there again. I'll continue to make my move north and live in the mountains.

So the South had slaves, big deal. What about the Norths treatment of immigrants and especially the Irish. I think the North had its own form of slavery. They just didn't pick cotton.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't white slavery just as common.


Or don't white lives matter?

Hell, there were nearly as many Irish slaves imported as Africans, and a lot of those Irish slaves were women who were brought over SPECIFICALLY as "breeders".