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.

 

[Robert Becker]

I disagree.

In today's world where we have generations of people who have been brought up believing that we are "one nation under God". What would keep the vast number of people from supporting a war against one or even a few states to force them to stay in the union. You also only have to look at the belief by the vast number of people in the federal supremacy clause. That little lie they taught all children growing up in school.

What makes you think they had an easier time selling a war to force states back into the union in a time when people still grew up believing in state sovereignty and states rights? That was a time when the states had the military might. The federal government had no standing army. That was a time when, if you enlisted, you joined your state's army. Not a federal army.

That was a time when The state could still refuse to send troops when they felt it violated the constitutional restraints as Virginia did. Now even the States' militias are called the national guard and are directly answerable to the federal armies orders not the state's.

I do agree on the reason it failed. I didn't say it failed because it was illegal. I said it failed. It failed because enough people were willing to force other people to "pony up" money to pay bills for things the larger number of people wanted paid for.

What makes you think in today's world that the fewer people, those of us who believe in individual sovereignty and the right to keep what you earn, can leave a union where those who believe they deserve what they want because they want it, far outnumber us? They not only have the numbers because they actually feast upon the teet of the federal government or the state government.

They have the numbers because a majority of people are content with the way the world works and will do anything and approve anything to keep from having that upset. Look what they tolerate knowing that everything they do or say is stored by the federal government. People so want to stay entertained that they pay some company to keep their DNA that they send to them for some belief that they can tell them where they come from.

I say the Confederacy had a better chance at success than any group of states would have today. They only had to contend with a lack of manpower and supplies. Today we have less of everything.

The federal government has a standing military with plenty of everything stockpiled. If even half the troops decide to desert they will still have enough troops to quash any secession. If you think the troops would refuse to fight citizens of the US, realize that half would believe the lie that you are just homegrown terrorists hellbent on destroying the great country they swore to protect.

Then realize that every evil dictator had a standing army made up for the most part by people who were from families of people from that country and were raised in the country ruled by that dictator.

[Robert Becker]

But hey I am probably wrong on this point. I sure hope I end up being so.

[Jim Delaney]

There is nothing I've read, heard or seen over the past 60+ years which would suggest that Americans would go to war with one another in 2020 over secession. Such an inconvenient  disturbance would put an annoying wrinkle in their daily lives and routines. In fact, more and more I am aware of a growing call for either secession of rebellion. That call can be easily seen on social media and in face-to-face encounters. But, I am no  longer surprised by this development. Folks are sick, desperately sick, of Leftist tyranny.  Secession or rebellion will happen. Why?The Left, like the me-first, unbridled adolescents they are, will push until they finally and appropriately get slapped down.  I prefer secession. Peaceful and painless. No need to shed blood most Americans would be averse to anyway  On the other hand, if, over time, a dumbed down, duped American polity knowingly accepts Leftist tyranny, then slaves of Oceania we will be, except those of us who will find other ways to defend our Liberty. Again, this is not 1861. If, for example, Texas were to vote itself out of the union, tell me honestly. What would be the reaction of the other 49 states?  Surprise, maybe even shock, some soul-searching, but also some honest reflection on what course they should take to arrest the tyranny.

[Jim Robinett]

you are most likely correct when you state that there would be no war between the states over succession but there may be one over socialism!

[Jim Delaney]

Of course, secession--or rebellion--would be driven by totalitarian Progressive, neo-Marxist, Socialist ideology. Freedom and Communism/Fascism are like oil and water. They cannot coexist. 

[Keith Broaders]

The Constitution was a compact between the states that established equality among the states. Each state was sovereign and could not lawfully be compelled other states to  federal laws that violated the God given rights of their people. 

Abraham Lincoln's war to compel the states to remain in the Union violated the principle of state sovereignty. The south did not have a right to compel the northern states to embrace slavery and the northern states had no right to compel the south to abolish the institution of slavery.

Forcing a women to remain married to an abusive husband is and forcing the southern states to remain a part of a union that was taxing them unfairly was the true cause for the Civil War. Only 30% of the people lived in the south, but they were paying nearly 80% of the taxes,

[Jim Delaney]

Yup.

[valerie anne eggers]

This is a fascinating and oh so educational discussion.  I must say I always wondered why it was the South was unable to peacefully withdraw from the union. But, as we know it was not. Each state is set up as it's own county it seems. There's no question that the federal government over powers any one or few of them in every way. So now we are a country made up of states, or little countries who are legally controlled by the federal head. 

I could not imagine a successful  much less peaceful  nullification  or separation from that federal head, even in view of the Tenth Amendment.  I do believe we are  stronger united. but seemingly not happier. . It's the powers that be and  the  changing of their loyalties that birth discord. 

Admittedly I am not the expert on the  Constitution as many of you seem to be. I know some history but I am not an expert there either. However, I do follow the events of day.  They tell me that there's no way succession would go easily. and less likely to be successful.  Just my view. 

Follow the money.  How much would it cost the feds to lose states??  

We have a fragmented society, and I can't imagine the more aggressive Left would ever accept anything but whole and complete load of bread. And they, I think is bigger than a national factor. We are dealing with a globalist mindset.  That group needs America's money to fund their agenda. If they had to deal with several small countries or even just two countries instead of the one United States, they too would be invested and involved in any major movement as described above. Even if that involvement were not obvious. 

Whether or not sates have the legal right to leave the union is a totally different issue than the practical possibility of that happening.  

I will continue to read and learn. Thanks for all of your participation. 

[Jim Delaney]

Again, the conditions today are totally different than they were in 1861, TOTALLY. Of active duty army, at least 75% of whom are genuine patriots and conservatives to boot, many of whom are national guardsmen whose neighbors would be residents in seceding States, there would be NO appetite or political interest in assisting the feds in any invasion of those States. Also, fed invasion of a seceding State or States would render the country vulnerable to dangerous foreign interference as well. Also, remember there is a California secession movement as well as a Texas movement to accomplish the same. They are socialist and conservative respectively. SO, the seceding State or States would represent different ideologies, meaning that if Libs don't march on California, they certainly wouldn't march on Texas--mannly because they'd have their ass handed to them. Today, States wield enormous economic and military power, very much unlike the CSA states when they seceded. Would the liberal soldiers march on California too?. Fed invasion of a State today is simply not practical or do-able. And were the army to attack Texas, the 12th largest economy in the world, the cost in men, lives and treasure would be prohibitive, and everyone knows it. Peaceful secession has occurred all over the world, just in the 20th century alone. Not unprecedented. And remember that most folks in the North, inclusive of the major newspapers, were opposed to fed invasion of the CSA. How did Lincoln deal with these objections? He summarily jailed them--even put the Supreme Court Justice under house arrest. No habeas corpus. So, when he precipitated SC's bombardment of Ft. Sumpter, part of SC's sovereign territory, he ralllied the Northerners, none of whom was aware they;d been cynically manipulated. Lincoln says he fought the war to save the union. From itself? From its foundational principles? Yes. His goal was to turn the framers on their heads and create a corporate-run DC. Mission accomplished. We now have vassals, not States. Well past time for serious pushback, but I would prefer the more sensible secession route. 

[Robert Becker]

Actually the talk f secession is hyped more than realistically thought of. In California it is only threatened they would never do it because their budget could not stand without the incoming money from the federal government.. Texas economy may be that high in the world but when compared to rest of the US it would pale in comparison. You also talk as if just because a majority would agree with secession doesnt mean all would. As i stated earlier you have to take into accoutn all the people in the US that have been brought up in believing in "one country under God, Indivisible" how many in texas if secession actually became serious discussion would fight to prevent it from happening. Believing in the flag and their country.

[Jim Robinett]

california in my opinion is one of the most socialistic areas of this Country, mainly the southern part of california.  the mountains of california have a lot of people that believe as we do and they also believe in the Lord and His teachings.  Texas is a world of it's own but like you stated both like the federal monies sent to them so they will never leave the union.  educating the people is not nearly enough, those people need to actually live the life they think they want before they will realize they do not want that life.  maybe that is what it will take before people wake up and come back to reality.

[Jim Delaney]

We were never intended to be "indivisible". The framers were much wiser than that. In fact, New England came within a hair's breath of seceding. Only the conclusion of the War of 1812 obviated the need for same. AND they would have gotten away with it! Like Texas, they were militarily and economically powerful. As I recall, it was some socialist who included the "indivisible" thingy in the pledge. The framers would have winced. But we dopes bought it hook, line and sinker. Sounds so unifying, so noble, blah blah blah. The point is it's a deadly, suicidal notion for a free People. Why? It gets back to the vacuous unity-at-any-price thing. So, ANY price must be paid to ensure unity among the States? Not to my way of thinking, nor to the founders' way of thinking either. No, secession, like rebellion, civil disobedience and nullification, is not the stuff of "hype", my friend. It is a founder-sanctioned and Natural Law remedy. Those remedies shaped our very founding, our first principles. Secession or rebellion are inevitable. No county in history has remained immutable. And since the early 20th century, the toxic ideological struggle in America has been underway. The struggle will be resolved one way or the other. Either we are enslaved or free. My bet is on the secessionists or, not as palatable but equally as effective, the increasingly desperate and thoroughly fed-up rebels.