Southern Avenger

The irony is that in 1776 the colonies seceded from the British Crown for far less egregious acts than the full blown intrusive government we have today. If those calling the idea of secession "crazy talk" were around then, I assume they would have wanted to remain as Englishmen under the thumb of King George.

Just perhaps, if the public understood our right of nullification and secession, the federal government might pause its continued encroachment into areas never delegated by the Constitution.

So when your dream becomes reality, will we then have a new, free-flowing commerce system between our dozen or so new republics? No, there will be far more border crossings, tariffs, and ill-meshing regulations (a la CARB v. EPA). Will the residents of those republics be contained to their god-forsaken "foreign countries?" No, because we can't seem to control our borders as it is. Will we get to have our guns? Only if they're built in the country where you now reside... and the ammunition as well.

So when it really comes down to it, if one looks forward to the Republic of Shrimpangrits' formation, one also has to hope that it is formed with a constitution that the dreamer agrees with. Otherwise, you're stuck dreaming of the time when you lived in the USA when it was all cool.

Plus, the Olympics would suck and I can only imagine that it would make the BCS even more bogus.

Had we broken up 100 years ago we would now be two countries- The United States of Germany and the United States of Japan; split at the Mississippi River. Who would take over these dozen or so small weak "countries" that you advocate today?
Secession= bad idea.
Secessionists=idiots.

I would be interested in reading how it could possibly be done economically and legally (I'm not talking about the right to secede, but rather Federal laws that would make it impossible - US Military installations come to mind). Give me something to read - I'll give the idea a chance (unless it's racist propaganda).

Your writing is still atrocious, though it mirrors the adolescent thinking. How about adding a subject for the second sentence? I realize times are tough, but does anyone proofread over there?

The idea of a generall secession is entertaining to ponder, but I doubt it willl ever come about. There are too many living within the borders off the current Government totally uneducated as to their heritage as Americans. The founding generation, and of course the generation that attempted secession 150 years ago, endured alot to act upon their principles. Somehow I don't think people genuinely entertained by Survivor: Who Cares, Extra, and American Idol have the necessary gumption to see it through.

Another excellent article on Secession and why it is needed and why it's on the way. I've been working on Secession for more than 10 years and can say that it has definitely moved into the main stream of everyday discussion compared to the beginning of my involvement.

For intellectual essays on secession see http://tinyurl.com/yabnooj and the other books referenced there.

For a Free South.

Pat

Maybe SC should become an independent nation?

The SC Palmetto Republic at
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile…

Excellent piece, sir. We in the Texas Nationalist Movement have maintained for years (that mean,s BEFORE Obama) that secessionw as the only way we could get out from under Washington's ever-grasping thumb.

I can see it now: the South secedes and becomes the industrialized nation with the unquestionably worst diet, life expectancy, education, drivers, and poverty problems in the world. The "Union" suddenly jumps 10 years in life expectancy and the "average American" student becomes impressive again. That's progress!

But hey, the taxes would be low! Wheee!

"Had we broken up 100 years ago we would now be two countries- The United States of Germany and the United States of Japan; split at the Mississippi River. Who would take over these dozen or so small weak "countries" that you advocate today?
Secession= bad idea.
Secessionists=idiots.
.Posted by FCB on September 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM | Report this comment"

Oh, the willfull ignorance displayed in its full regallia.

Germany could not cross the Channel. And Japan ... what were the logisitics required to throw the Hail Mary known as Pearl Harbor? The Japanese KNEW that they could never invade the mainland because they would have encountered a gun behind every blade of grass. Not to mention Day of Deceit.

Here is an alternate view of how would it have been had we split 100 years ago:
1) No Spanish-American war and, therefore, no Filipino-American War (oops, sorry Filipino Insurrection) and no Hawaii.
2) No occupation of Filipines and take over of Hawaii no instigation of Japan.
3) No uS' intervention in Europe's war, no 2nd World War, no holocaust and no Communist take over.
4) No 2nd World War, no fearmongering about speaking German and/or Japanese. Should I throw in some "no Italian" for good measure?

BTW, the split would not have been east-west along the Miss. River. You have read books, haven't you?

Deo Vindice
JaimeInTexas

BTW, the split would not have been east-west along the Miss. River. You have read books, haven't you?

And just how would the Germans and Japanese have split it up?

"Germany could not cross the Channel. And Japan ... what were the logisitics required to throw the Hail Mary known as Pearl Harbor? The Japanese KNEW that they could never invade the mainland because they would have encountered a gun behind every blade of grass."

The Germans couldn't cross the channel because the British were backed by the United States. Perhaps you forgot that the Germans and Japanese were allies? The little Balkenized states you idiots want would have fallen under a two front attack by these powers.
And the little popguns "behind every blade of grass" would be no match for two invading armies.
Guess you never served so you have no idea of the power of a real army.

You mean kinda like the power of the Real British Army against the colonists...?

The United Colonies or United States, not individual Balkanized states. Britain would have picked them off one at a time otherwise.
Besides, they had an army. Ever heard of General Washington?

If anyone thinks that the Japanese, whether with the Germans or not, had the resources to invade/occupy/hold any acreage, anywhere, in North America is beyond reaching.

The Colonies declared independence individually and jointly. The Colonies joined to fight together as fully independent republics, under the Articles. Each declared themselves free and independent and sent delegates to the secession convention ... my bad, the Continental Convention. The former Colonies, individually, were also declared free and independent under the Treaty of Paris.

Were the former Colonies independent republics? Read Gibbons v. Ogden and find out what Mr. Federalist himself, Chief Justice Marshall wrote as to the status of the former Colonies prior to the Constitution of 1787.

"The Germans couldn't cross the channel because the British were backed by the United States. Perhaps you forgot that the Germans and Japanese were allies?"
At the time of the Battle of Britian, the US was not making significant contributions to the British. And officially, the US was still neutral. The British won because they had the second most powerful navy in the world, and the German attackers had to fly hundreds of miles to get to the British targets, which were always prepared, because of their superior radar. Now imagine the Germans had to fly *thousands* of miles, over the most powerful navy on Earth, to attack a country with even better radar. They'd all die in the Atlantic, because they didn't have planes that could make a transatlantic attack, and they had no surface fleet. On top of that, they lacked the industrial capacity to build a surface fleet, because the war with the far more numerous Soviets was sucking away all of their resources.
Of course all of that would be moot, because if the US had broken up a century ago, there would have been no Wilsonian adventurism in the Great War, and therefore no Hitler, and no WWII. (And no Stalin, or Mao, or Ho Chi Min, or Castro, etc...)

"The little Balkenized states you idiots want would have fallen under a two front attack by these powers.
And the little popguns "behind every blade of grass" would be no match for two invading armies."
That's probably why Hitler and Mussolini used their "two invading armies" to crush the Swiss and their militia "popguns"...oh wait, the German Wehrmacht predicted that an invasion of Switzerland would break the German Army, so they ignored Switzerland.
And before calling people idiots, you might want to educate yourself in History, a field that you display little knowledge of.

"Guess you never served so you have no idea of the power of a real army."
I guess if you did, you had nothing to do with logistics.
Do you honestly think a few million German or Japanese regulars would be a match for one hundred million American militia? Even if we were no longer subject to the same centralized power, I suspect that enough of us would go to the aid of the coastal states to easily repel any invasion. And how many ships would they have to build to keep that kind of force supplied? Do some research on the Liberty Ship (sic.). It was a WWII supply ship built by the US. They built more of those than any other ship, by far. The US military spent more effort supplying its troops than fighting the enemy in WWII, and most of its attacks were launched from nearby friendly territory, such as Hawaii, China, Britain, or Australia. It would have been far worse, effectively impossible, if they had to launch their attacks from across an ocean.

"The United Colonies or United States, not individual Balkanized states. Britain would have picked them off one at a time otherwise."
They were 13 *Sovereign* states that worked together for a common cause, much like the dozen republics mentioned in the original article might. They did not think of themselves as a single nation. Troops from Virginia fighting in New Jersey considered themselves Virginians, not Americans. It wasn't until Lincoln destroyed the idea of States' Rights that people began to consider the US a single nation.

"Besides, they had an army. Ever heard of General Washington?"
You consider *that* a "real army"? If so, your standards are pretty low. These were guys who in the beginning didn't have uniforms, consistent weaponry, or even training on how to march in formation. They were simply men who were willing to fight to protect their families and their Liberty.

I live in Georgia with at least 16 army, marine, naval, and airforce bases. Georgia's secession would make it probably the second or third most powerful military in the world. Exactly how would that work since all of it was bought with federal dollars?

Factoryconnection seems to actually believe that If the South were to secede, the academic records of the North would be free to shine. He obviously neglects to consider that the low averages are due far more to inner city scores than those of the Southern States.

I like some of your points, qwilsilver, but you talk about the US as one country- the point here is that the US is assumed to be a bunch of small separate countries, half of which don't like the other half.
Hence, little or no support for each other never mind Britain.
My WW2 history may be a bit rusty, but Britain probably would have fallen without US support. Would the Balkenized states have provided this support?
And to lwhunt, the military equipment is US property. Do you really think Georgia gets to keep the attack and FBM subs statione at King's Bay?
A better question would be how much of the US's debt do each of the Balkenized states get to keep?

Would the remaining US still have to pay social security to people in the seceeded Balkenized states?

So you people think that even with a Balkenized US Japan and Germany wouldn't have won WW2?
Oookay, so how would the Soviet Union have done under those conditions?

Well, with secession perhaps the facts of the matter would become clear to the rubes that worship big centralized government. Those regions and governments that respect property rights the most would tend to experience the most prosperity on a multitude of levels.

No, Britain and Russia would have won World War Two, of that there can be no doubt. Real soldiers argue logistics, the British built the largest strategic bomber used in Europe and had over 7000 of them. The Germans had no strategic bombardment aircraft and their wonder weapons consumed the raw materials that could have built over 25,000 more aircraft.

No, sorry, even if the US government had been forced to be neutral throughout the 1942-45 time period (the duration of the US involvement was short) Germany would have lost.

The Japanese would have fared much worst if the US had concentrated on them after the attack. As it was, they were rolled up in a little over 2.5 years, the need for invasion of Japan was more mythology.

With a divided America, the southern half, or even the Southern quarter, would have pretty much stopped the US global military adventures which profited the few at teh expense of most Americans, north or south.

As far as any southern deficit in capabilities, those are Yankee myths as well. South Carolina is the third largest producer of power via nuclear energy in America, following only Illinois and Indiana, in total output. Our port in Charleston is first class, our industrial based is diverse and widespread.

South Carolina could easily become a free and independent country, we're already a nation.

Pat H, I've never heard a US WW2 vet that would agree with that.
And I doubt that Britain could ever had invaded and liberated Europe without a single and strong USA's major involvment.
Could Russia have invaded Europe and defeated the Natzis?
Then the Separated States Of America would have had a Soviet Republic that included all of Europe to face next. Suppose they decided to declare war on the Southern Country of Georgia? Would the rest of the separated states become involved?
That's the problem with alternate histories, changing one significant event such as having a strong and single USA changes everything else, and we can't really tell how this would have really worked out.
But I am patriotic enough to say we are far better off as the saying goes, "one nation, indivisible". And I consider those that think otherwise to be traitors.

"Pat H, I've never heard a US WW2 vet that would agree with that."
So? How many of them had any access to the high level decision making where conclusions like that could really be made?
Look at total manpower, industrial output, fuel production, and food production. The Axis was completely outclassed by Britain and Russia.

"And I doubt that Britain could ever had invaded and liberated Europe without a single and strong USA's major involvment."
I agree. However, why is this a requirement? Germany was already on the verge of collapse from internal strife and uprisings in conquered territories. Empires fall, the more totalitarian they are, the quicker they fall. And Naziism is pretty totalitarian.

"Could Russia have invaded Europe and defeated the Natzis(sic.)?"
Possibly, but then they'd be in the same situation as the Nazis, facing a very determined subjugated population. The likely outcome (without the US secretly providing almost half of all "Soviet" production) would be a collapse of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, with regional nations springing up along cultural and ethnic boundaries (i.e. Europe).

"Then the Separated States Of America would have had a Soviet Republic that included all of Europe to face next."
Why? You assume that the Soviets would somehow become a super enemy that would have to be faced. They were only confrontational in actual history, because the US was so confrontational. And again, they'd have far more problems closer to home to deal with, to worry about invading a country 8000 miles away.

"Suppose they decided to declare war on the Southern Country of Georgia? Would the rest of the separated states become involved?"
Why would they? They already had their own Georgia, and it is oil rich. North America's Georgia has nothing to offer them as a colony that justifies the massive costs of obtaining it.
How would they attack our Georgia? Send an invasion fleet to Savannah? See the previous issues of logistics.
And I suspect many people, especially those from neighboring states, would contribute out of self interest (after all, Florida might be next) or the sense of regional community (SC & GA don't have to be in the same nation, for their people to feel a kinship).

'But I am patriotic enough to say we are far better off as the saying goes, "one nation, indivisible".'
Patriotism is not loyalty to a government. It's loyalty to ideals and philosophy. The original American patriots (Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.) would likely find the phrase "one nation, indivisible" revolting, and then begin doing so. Loyalty to a government is just ignorance. The men I mentioned would all consider themselves Virginians, not Americans.
Also, patriotism is not a valid argument for an improved economic situation. It's usually what people fall back on when they have no valid argument (like you just did).
Incidentally the ridiculous mantra that that was taken from was written by Frank Bellamy, a Marxist. No free country would ever suggest having people swear their loyalty to a government.

'And I consider those that think otherwise to be traitors.'
And some long dead Britons would consider you a traitor for not showing allegiance to the crown of King George III.
Or, more recently, since the Constitution allows states to join and leave voluntarily, you're a traitor to the Constitution for trying to suppress a legitimate Constitutional process.
Fortunately for you we secessionist, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or whatever label you wish to assign us, would never suggest executing someone for a difference of opinion.

"I like some of your points, qwilsilver(sic.), but you talk about the US as one country- the point here is that the US is assumed to be a bunch of small separate countries, half of which don't like the other half."
You were referring to actual world History, so in my response, I did as well.
Since when do we dislike each other? Most of our regional conflicts stem from the political shell game (politicians have to divide Americans into anti-this and pro-that groups to mask the fact that they're looting our futures). If that goes away, so will the discord. How many of us oppose socialized medicine? <raises hand> How many of those who do dislike Canadians? Not too many, because they don't impose it on us.
A decentralized America would still be just as far from Germany, and just as impossible to invade.

"Hence, little or no support for each other never mind Britain."
That's a big assumption (the first part). Care to back it up?

"My WW2(sic.) history(sic.) may be a bit rusty, but Britain probably would have fallen without US support. Would the Balkenized(sic.) states have provided this support?"
I wouldn't say your History is rusty, as much as just wrong. The Germans had no possibility of successfully invading Britain. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Operation Sea Lion (look it up) was scrapped, because the Germans lacked the naval resources to carry it out, and would not have the m before 1950, by which time, Nazism would have likely imploded.

"And to lwhunt, the military equipment is US property. Do you really think Georgia gets to keep the attack and FBM subs statione at King's Bay?"
I agree. Much like the Russians pulled out the Soviet military equipment when the Baltic States left, the US should pull out its military equipment, when American states leave. Of course if there was a complete dissolution of the nation, then it would probably be best to divide assets like that between the states based on population.

"A better question would be how much of the US's debt do each of the Balkenized(sic.) states get to keep?"
If they left the US, they would likely get little. If the federal government simply closed shop, the debt would likely be split between the states. Or they could simply not pay it and tell the Chinese bankers to go after the former US congress & presidents if they want their money back.
I prefer the latter method. That's what happens when you loan money to compulsive spenders, who lack a decent method of repayment.

"Fortunately for you we secessionist, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or whatever label you wish to assign us, would never suggest executing someone for a difference of opinion."
Where did I say to execute anyone?
And fortunately, secessionists are a very very tiny and powerless minority of lunatics, who cannot be taken seriously.
You speak of breaking up our country, the United States Of America, not our government, which we routinely replace.
Traitor.

Again, kwiqsilver, some good points but:
1. I thought the problem was the old South vs. North, which had to include some degree of hatred. Some of these posts assume the North and South stayed split after the Civil War,; others want to split now. Since we are talking about WW2 (abbreviated, not misspelled), I am assuming the former.
2. "Hence, little or no support for each other never mind Britain."
"That's a big assumption (the first part). Care to back it up?"
How could a bunch of banana republics support Britain the way the United States did?
3. My WW2(sic.) history(sic.) may be a bit rusty, but Britain probably would have fallen without US support. Would the Balkanized (sic.) states have provided this support?"
"I wouldn't say your History is rusty, as much as just wrong. The Germans had no possibility of successfully invading Britain. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Operation Sea Lion (look it up) was scrapped, because the Germans lacked the naval resources to carry it out, and would not have the m before 1950, by which time, Nazism would have likely imploded."
Now you are making assumptions. Worse, without Britain and the United States, Russia would have taken over all of Europe if the Axis imploded. I know, another assumption.
4. Thanks.
5. Or they could simply not pay it and tell the Chinese bankers to go after the former US congress & presidents if they want their money back."
Defaults are never a good idea, especially since most of the debt is owed to our own citizens, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimate…. And remember, we elected and are to some extent responsible for the actions of our congress and president.

""Fortunately for you we secessionist, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or whatever label you wish to assign us, would never suggest executing someone for a difference of opinion."
Where did I say to execute anyone?" Calling someone a traitor implies punishment, in any case such an ad hominem attack is the refuge of the pusillanimous.

"And fortunately, secessionists are a very very tiny and powerless minority of lunatics, who cannot be taken seriously."At the height of the American Secession of 1776-83 only about 35% of the population was supportive of the secession from the United Kingdom, that's all it took.

I attended the First Southern National Congress in 2008, an analog of the First Continental Congress of 1774. I recently attended the Second Southern National Congress, our attendance had nearly doubled within the 9 months that had elapsed between them. We expect to double that again by the Third Congress next year.

We're serious and dedicated. As H. L. Mencken said, "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause."

"You speak of breaking up our country, the United States Of America, not our government, which we routinely replace.
Traitor."
We support lawful government and government by the people who wish to have that government. We will sunder what was made by force.

Get used to it.

FCB...you obviously don't consider those in Washington DC to be traitors to the very oath they take to defend the Constitution so why would you consider those who would prefer to nullify the wedding contract due to the usurping of states rights by the centralist or progressives to be traitors? What needs to happen is a few states simply need to invoke the Militia act, and tell the Feds to get out of state business. The people need to be educated to the power of Jury Nullification to nullify any and all laws that the Feds try to enforce on the states. For instance, if the Feds try to arrest someone in Montana who insists that the new firearms freedom act is the law, which it is, the folks in Montana could simply lock the Fed up and tell them to get the "F" out of town. The Sheriff who understands states rights would be a nightmare to any Fed who came in his jurisdiction trying to push his/her weight around. REALITY for MR. FCB...first it was the PEOPLE who formed the "STATES" who then formed the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE STATES. I am reminded of a statement made by Thomas Jefferson in his well known writing...Guess what that was?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.."

IT IS OUR RIGHT, IT IS OUR DUTY to throw off anyone who insists on VIOLATING our GOD GIVEN UNALIENABLE rights. And if we decide to become separate countries again then so be it. WE NEED SAFEGUARDS and that is the way I see it.

Well said, Jack. Secession was the right choice in 1776 and 1860.....and in 2009. Keep up the good work.

The people in Washington were legally elected by a majority of Americans.
But that is the real problem here isn't it? Your "team" lost so now you want to take your ball and go home.

"I attended the First Southern National Congress in 2008, an analog of the First Continental Congress of 1774. I recently attended the Second Southern National Congress, our attendance had nearly doubled within the 9 months that had elapsed between them. We expect to double that again by the Third Congress next year."

Yeah, it doubled from 50 to 100 people.

I voted for the people who legally represent me, not some phony Southern National Congress. If they haven't been elected they do not represent anybody but themselves.

FCB keeps making the ridiculous, absurd, idiotic, (check your thesaurus for other options) assertion that the entire history of the world up through December 7th, 1941 would have been identical, even if the Civil War never occurred (the South went its way peacefully).

How simple-minded and moronic can one guy be? And then he has to post the same idiocy twenty times in a row! Give it a break, dumba$$

kwiksilver, you have a great grasp of the potential alternative history, but neglect to point out that if the US had not intervened in WW1 it would have been settled by treaty, Germany would not have been financially crippled, and the conditions that lead to the rise of Hitler and National Socialism would never have happened. US military interference in the world, overt and covert, has caused many of the problems we face today. For example, 9/11 was a direct "blowback" from our interference in the middle east.

We need to push secession as a viable and moral alternative to federal over-reach.

"Yeah, it doubled from 50 to 100 people.

I voted for the people who legally represent me, not some phony Southern National Congress. If they haven't been elected they do not represent anybody but themselves."

When elected representatives, such as Lindsey Graham, do not obey the law, the Constitution is law, then they lose whatever moral authority that they were granted. When you have no moral authority, the fact that you were elected is meaningless.

At some point, in the very near future, people will elect members of the Southern National Congress or League of the South to represent them, that does not mean that we haven't the moral authority to lead by our actions today.

I think we've had enough talk about history, we're moving forward, we in the secessionist movement are the only viable alternative to the leviathan state, the most dangerous entity to American's today.

Pat H... you forgot to add the "mwahahahah" to your conclusion.

No individual can tell our story better than The Bonnie Blue Flag song from the movie, "Gods and Generals"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjOIFGrYtaE

FCB: Fidel has it right. WW2 arguements are all moot because they are based on the false premise that history as we now know it would've occured exactly the same even if the South had won the war for Southern independence. As to us seccessionists being low in numbers, remember, FCB, that it was only three percent of the Colonists who believed in and fought for independence in the Seccessionist War against Great Brittain (aka the Revolutionary War). As for your comment, "The people in Washington were legally elected by a majority of Americans.
But that is the real problem here isn't it? Your 'team' lost so now you want to take your ball and go home." let's make it like this: The people in Berlin were legally elected by a majority of Germans.
But that is the real problem here isn't it? You "Jews" lost so now you want to take your ball and go home. Interesting how the so-called majority can be wrong - terribly wrong.