Seceeding from the Union

[Faithdancer]

If we can at all get it back, however, then that becomes our duty. Fantasies (for that is what they are) about new attempts at state secession are counterproductive.

ICXC NIKA

This is why I feel the limited government envisioned by our founding fathers is currently best represented by the Constitution Party:

constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/2012Platform/tabid/127/Default.aspx

 

[GEddie]

I am a pacifist. I oppose secession in part because of the huge militarization that garrisoning all of those new frontiers would require. (Don’t kid yourselves; it would indeed be required.)

If the USA did fragment, I would not willingly kill anybody, and if possible would leave NA rather than do so. I still think secession is a wrongheaded idea however.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Faithdancer]

I see secession talk at present as a form of letting off steam over the recent election.

I will share this tidbit from the Constitution Party platform preamble- a preamble which probably mentions God more times than all of the other party platform preambles put together: “That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights.” (italics mine)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I appreciate your candor. I assume that as a Unionist you would be willing to kill me and my fellow Missourians rather than watch us walk away from the union peacefully.

The Civil War wasn’t fought with soundbites. This isn’t the History Channel.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I am a pacifist. I oppose secession in part because of the huge militarization that garrisoning all of those new frontiers would require. (Don’t kid yourselves; it would indeed be required.)

If the USA did fragment, I would not willingly kill anybody, and if possible would leave NA rather than do so. I still think secession is a wrongheaded idea however.

ICXC NIKA

I am not a pacifist, but I think close to the way you do. The fact is that there are going to be more consequences to leaving the country than just leaving, and it’s foolhardy and highly idealistic to think otherwise.

 

[Faithdancer]

Let’s not forget that whether or not it was practiced, slavery remained legal in Delaware and New Jersey until the 13th Amendment was ratified. It took an amendment to the US Constitution to outlaw slavery in two “Union” states. Missouri and Tennessee, by contrast, abolished slavery before the end of the Civil War.

 

[Neildown]

Then get the Battle flag down. Before you fly that flag, know what it means (liberty), what it doesn’t (racism), and what it has been paired with (the KKK flag and racism when they chose to use it). People wantonly waving this flag around are detrimental to the cause of Southern Pride and secession.

And keep in mind that our star spangled banner has plenty of blood it too from the ethnic cleansing that gave us a free ride for 150 or so years.

My Southern friend and I make jokes about both of our sides of the country all the time, purely in friendly humor - I see nothing wrong with throwing in a bit of humor on a discussion every once in awhile when it isn’t in bad taste. As for my lack of knowledge about the Rebel flag and the South, I’ve at least learned more about both than anyone else I know of my age (discluding my above-mentioned friend).

“Furl that banner, for 'tis weary,
Round it’s staff 'tis drooping dreary,
Furl it, fold it, it is best;
For there’s not a man to wave it,
And there’s not a sword to save it,
And there’s no one left to lave it,
In the blood that heroes gave it;
And it’s foes now scorn and brave it;
Furl it, hide it - let it rest.”

 

[Neildown]

i have never figured out what the south has to be proud of

Contrary to popular myth, the South wasn’t as bad as most people (usually from the North ) make it out to have been. Turns out, the South was actually a much more hospitable place for Catholics, who were being harassed by the Know Nothings up in the North. The whole “No Irish Need Apply” thing was also largely exclusive to the North if I recall correctly. Not to mention, even though Southerners get piled-on because of their position on slavery, they were generally more open-minded and cordial as concerned differing religious views. The pope had even considered siding with the South because of it’s open-mindedness in that regard - believing that slavery could be put out of the system with some effort and patience.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I appreciate your candor. I assume that as a Unionist you would be willing to kill me and my fellow Missourians rather than watch us walk away from the union peacefully.

A fellow Missourian! Welcome to CAF! Ozarks here. Southwest.

Of possible interest, Missouri at first elected to remain in the Union, but neutral. The Feds wouldn’t have that, and invaded the state, which drove the governor and legislature to declare for the Confederacy.

One more thing of possible interest. For political reasons, the Union never admitted that Missouri seceded, though it was recognized as a Confederate state by the Confederacy. After the war, all seceding states’ legislatures had to pass an act of reunion. Missouri was not required to do it. So, technically, Missouri is not in the Union, depending on how one wants to look at it.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Contrary to popular myth, the South wasn’t as bad as most people (usually from the North ) make it out to have been. Turns out, the South was actually a much more hospitable place for Catholics, who were being harassed by the Know Nothings up in the North. The whole “No Irish Need Apply” thing was also largely exclusive to the North if I recall correctly. Not to mention, even though Southerners get piled-on because of their position on slavery, they were generally more open-minded and cordial as concerned differing religious views. The pope had even considered siding with the South because of it’s open-mindedness in that regard - believing that slavery could be put out of the system with some effort and patience.

I believe the south had a Jewish secretary of war and state, Judah P. Benjamin.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A fellow Missourian! Welcome to CAF! Ozarks here. Southwest.

Of possible interest, Missouri at first elected to remain in the Union, but neutral. The Feds wouldn’t have that, and invaded the state, which drove the governor and legislature to declare for the Confederacy.

One more thing of possible interest. For political reasons, the Union never admitted that Missouri seceded, though it was recognized as a Confederate state by the Confederacy. After the war, all seceding states’ legislatures had to pass an act of reunion. Missouri was not required to do it. So, technically, Missouri is not in the Union, depending on how one wants to look at it.

Great! Missouri can lead the 2nd Great Secession! LOL

Just kidding. Interesting history though.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So, technically, Missouri is not in the Union, depending on how one wants to look at it.

On the other hand if the Confederacy had won we’d probably be pointing out how Missouri had never technically joined the Confederacy.

 

[Reep]

Originally Posted by Reep
I appreciate your candor. I assume that as a Unionist you would be willing to kill me and my fellow Missourians rather than watch us walk away from the union peacefully.

The Civil War wasn’t fought with soundbites. This isn’t the History Channel.

Sometimes it helps to cut through the baloney and state the question in stark terms. I ask if the pro-Union guys are willing to shoot me in the back as I walk peacefully away. If that is too simplistic, feel free to add relevant facts I may be missing.

This thread would have been a lot easier for the Union side to argue if it were still 1861. Unionists could just scream “Slavery!” and thereby win the moral argument. Now that slavery is off the table, the arguments against allowing self-determination are few and weak.

 

[Reep]

A fellow Missourian! Welcome to CAF! Ozarks here. Southwest.

Of possible interest, Missouri at first elected to remain in the Union, but neutral. The Feds wouldn’t have that, and invaded the state, which drove the governor and legislature to declare for the Confederacy.

One more thing of possible interest. For political reasons, the Union never admitted that Missouri seceded, though it was recognized as a Confederate state by the Confederacy. After the war, all seceding states’ legislatures had to pass an act of reunion. Missouri was not required to do it. So, technically, Missouri is not in the Union, depending on how one wants to look at it.

Great to meet you Ridgerunner. I should have known from your name.

The other day I posted a video on the internet. The background behind me was pine trees and hills and I got comments about the “lovely backdrop.” I had to confess it wasn’t a backdrop, it was my backyard and looked exactly the same as every other Missouri hillbilly’s back yard.

Your notes about Missouri civil war history are right on. Missouri was a truly hellish place during the civil war. At least in Georgia, your neighbors were probably on your side.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

One angle nobody has thought of is that if the world’s top nuclear power (the United States) suffered civil war, the UN Security Council might vote to intervene with UN troops, if the US nuclear weapons were thought to be in danger.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sometimes it helps to cut through the baloney and state the question in stark terms. I ask if the pro-Union guys are willing to shoot me in the back as I walk peacefully away. If that is too simplistic, feel free to add relevant facts I may be missing.

This thread would have been a lot easier for the Union side to argue if it were still 1861. Unionists could just scream “Slavery!” and thereby win the moral argument. Now that slavery is off the table, the arguments against allowing self-determination are few and weak.

Yes, the victors in war write the history books- just as in the War of Independence. If Britain had won, it would have been termed an illegal rebellion.

And on that note, is secession truly illegal?

 

[Faithdancer]

Great to meet you Ridgerunner. I should have known from your name.

The other day I posted a video on the internet. The background behind me was pine trees and hills and I got comments about the “lovely backdrop.” I had to confess it wasn’t a backdrop, it was my backyard and looked exactly the same as every other Missouri hillbilly’s back yard.

Your notes about Missouri civil war history are right on. Missouri was a truly hellish place during the civil war. At least in Georgia, your neighbors were probably on your side.

I’m a Yankee from California, but have experienced great friendliness in the Southern states I’ve visited: Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Evansville Indiana!

I did drive across the Texas panhandle, once, where my car was attacked by giant tumbleweeds. Didn’t have time to check out the local culture, though.

 

[GEddie]

Sometimes it helps to cut through the baloney and state the question in stark terms. I ask if the pro-Union guys are willing to shoot me in the back as I walk peacefully away. If that is too simplistic, feel free to add relevant facts I may be missing.

This thread would have been a lot easier for the Union side to argue if it were still 1861. Unionists could just scream “Slavery!” and thereby win the moral argument. Now that slavery is off the table, the arguments against allowing self-determination are few and weak.

“Self determination” indeed. It’s not 1861 anymore, but it’s not 1920 either.

After all, it was not about slavery to Lincoln, at least at first, but rather his awareness that there was no future for America if it shattered into dozens of minor nations. Although he personally opposed slavery, he did not intend fighting to suppress it.

The idea that minor political differences or discontent over ideas justify dismembering a strong nation is not noble; it’s wrongheaded.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Faithdancer]

“Self determination” indeed. It’s not 1861 anymore, but it’s not 1920 either.

After all, it was not about slavery to Lincoln, at least at first, but rather his awareness that there was no future for America if it shattered into dozens of minor nations. Although he personally opposed slavery, he did not intend fighting to suppress it.

The idea that minor political differences or discontent over ideas justify dismembering a strong nation is not noble; it’s wrongheaded.

ICXC NIKA

I read a monumental biography of Lincoln years ago, I forget the author’s name, but it was Pulitzer stuff. Anyway the author went into detail about Lincoln’s agonizing over whether or not to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

That was before Lincoln converted to homosexuality, retroactively.

 

[rossum]

Yes, the victors in war write the history books- just as in the War of Independence. If Britain had won, it would have been termed an illegal rebellion.

It was an illegal rebellion, but also a successful one.

And on that note, is secession truly illegal?

Not if the seceding states get permission from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to rejoin the Empire first.

rossum