Two Nations Would Be Better Than One

[Keith Broaders]

The philosophical differences between those of two major political parties has made compromise impossible. The only way to prevent another civil war is to create two separate nations.

Rather than having one divided nation, we would be much better off having two  separate nations.  I think that California should secede from the United States and become the first state in a new blue nation and all of the states that woild like to join this new blue nationy should be encoiraged to do so., 

All of the remaining states would form a separate union of red states with a foundation built on the principles of republicanism while the blue states could pursue demicracy...

Any resident unhappy with the political ideology of their new state would be able to pack their bags and move to a state where their values were shared by the vast majority of the residents.

 

[Trusader]

Where are comments?

[Keith Broaders]

By having two nations we could have one nation for the progressive democrats and another nation for the Constitutional conservatives.

[Jim Robinett]

that may be true but eventually there would be another war and it will be between these two factions.  what is wrong with allowing individuals to opt in or out of whatever statutes they are currently living under and not paying for the wants and desires of those free loaders who refuse to work to earn anything at all?  there is nothing wrong with living ones life under Gods laws and ignoring the socialist who will never work for what they want and who also refuse to live life under Gods laws..

[Alan Lopez]

I don't know. Wasn't the Civil war fought for the preservation of the union? Not to mention the problems of citizenship, loyalties, property etc. as there are conservatives and progressives in every state.

[Jim Robinett]

civil war was fought to preserve what the North and Lincoln wanted in the way of survival taxes NOT what the states located in the South wanted.  If Lee had not messed up in the last battle we would most likely be living in a completely different world!

[Robert Becker]

The civil war was fought to force the southern states to accept the tyranny of the federal government. The federal government under Lincoln fought the war to end the sovereignty of the states. South Carolina had advised that the fort needed to be abandoned. Lincoln deliberately began resupplying to instigate South Carolina's  response and it worked. They wanted a seceded state to fire the first shot so they could call upon the state militias because US troops had been fired upon. Otherwise the northern states could have just refused his call for troops. Hos call for troops from Virginia is the reason Lee and Virginia refused and left the union. "After Lincoln made a call for troops immediately after Fort Sumter, a majority of Virginians voted in favor of secession feeling that the Federal government of the Union was becoming too coercive".

[Jim Robinett]

what you said is true but I was referring to the last battle of the civil war, not the beginning.

[Robert Becker]

Well this we agree on then. Last battle which one are you referring to. I believe no matter how Lee fought he would have lost. He could nto replace lost troops, while the north could easily and did. It is why grant won his battles against Lee. He just kept throwing more and more troops at Lee. He never stopped. He didnt care how many died or were injured. He just kept throwing more and more men at Lee. The only chance Lee could have had is if he either pressed the battle of Gettysburg against one of the flanks before mcclellan got the majority of his troops onscene. They should have seized the high grounds.. Though in hindsight i would have withdrawn and found better grounds. Lee Never was able to replace the men he lost at gettysburg. His army never stood a chance afterwards

[Jim Delaney]

Right on, sir.

[George Golder Randall jr.]

the civil war was not a civil war it was a war of northern aggression, we were invaded, and lincoln wanted our money, he was a tyrant .our country went from a constitutional republic to a federalist empire

[Jim Delaney]

Amen, brother.

[Jim Delaney]

Lincoln fought the war to save the union???? Please!!!That notion is pablum dished up by revisionist historians. Lincoln launched this country into a terribly destructive war to save it? Does that make ANY sense at all? Of course not. To save the union from itself?  Huh? Who gave him that authority. Certainly not the founders. He invaded the CSA to maintain the considerable and burdensome  flow of southern tariffs into the federal treasury.  Also, he invaded the CSA, a legitimately sovereign country because, as he said, he didn't want to be the President who presided over the union's dissolution. In truth, the only sovereignty during 1861-1865 which was defending a constitutional republic of, by and for the People was the CSA. His tyrannical actions clothed in high-sounding rhetorical flourishes accomplished much more than the destruction of the CSA, a model of Jeffersonian democracy; he obliterated the Constitution and the foundational principle of dual federal-state sovereignty. As a result, since 1865 this faux constitutional republic has been in a deep and dizzying spiral into tyranny. States are vassals, not States; the People are but annoying pawns of the rich and powerful. The union has clearly outlived its usefulness. Well past time for a divorce.