So, I'm not socialist, but I agree with kynte on this issue more than anyone else. The Republican Party refuses to even look at anything Obama puts in front of them. Then they complain when Obama uses executive action. They gerrymander to maintain majority in legislatures and refuse to listen to liberal government laws by finding some bullshit loophole. Go Donald Trump, right? And knyte, you're party supports lowering taxes on the rich! Please tell me how that makes sense. To me it's them trying to please their gigantic corporate donors (and themselves), who would love to keep all of their billion dollars (because you can't make do with 600,000,000).

My american mother is a liberal. But I'm actually going to agree (vaugely) with Eklipse here. Why can't a state vote to secede? I get that it really isn't good for the government, but if society is THAT different from the US government's, then the state might as well be its own country. As long as there's a vote held, and the federal government recognizes it. You can't just say "I think I'll leave the Union now!" But what do I know? I'm just a Canadian with only the news and my mother's opinions to go on.

im starting to think secession is not such a bad thing. it would break the power of the US, but by what right does the US get to retain power? we are supposed to support the strength of the US (american citizens anyway) because the US is supposed to support us by working for us. the reality is this is not happening now. what we have now is a government bought by the wealthy without any genuine concern for it's people. so what right does the US have to retain it's federal power?

during the time of the civil war our moral justification for preserving the union was our belief in universal human rights (though most people's conception of that was far from perfect). our practical justification was that allowing the south to secede would give precedence for other states to secede, and we would likely end up a bunch of small hostile states vulnerable to european imperialism, which was a real concern at the time.

the situation is quite a bit different now. the government is practically opposed to secession because we would lose our imperial hegemony. i can't think of a moral opposition, unless the seceding states blatantly promoted persecution of homosexuals or black people (it's really not that far fetched).

i would rather our government remain strong and people take back power from moneyed interests, but if that doesn't happen then it would be better to split this country up than keep the evil empire we have now.

although the thought of a right wing totalitarian government in the south sickens me, the thought of what the US does to other countries and it's own people sickens me just as much

No. Fuck you. You don't get to do that. Most of your conservative shitholes are net receivers of tax money. You also have a shitload of military installations belonging to the federal government. It's like a psycho girlfriend breaking up with you and keeping the house she didn't fucking pay for.


But you do realize that the US is majority conservative, right? Until the old people die, of course, but even then conservatives have a much higher turnout, and have their votes inflated in most states thanks to gerrymandering.

Look, you can't tell me that the conservative side is being marginalized when you control the majority of state-level legislatures, governorships, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme fucking Court.

You guys are just being little bitches because you can't have your way all the time. Great- you know what that's called? A FUCKING DEMOCRACY.

Highest receives of tax money? Please, when you can prove that, prove it. Conservatives have always pushed for less money being given away, not more.

Also- exactly as Eklipse said, we're under minority rule. Which means, officially, we're not a democracy. At least, not technichally.

And it is. But you don't win all the time. Moreover, American democracy is bounded by civil rights. You can't simply vote to violate a civil right.

It's not "liberal rule" when the president has to use executive actions to implement any policy and where Congress can't pass anything liberal. Moreover, whenever something liberal does get passed, it's now ignored by the states. I don't think you've been to a Southern/conservative state recently- policies like prison privatization, school vouchers for religious schools, creationism being taught in school, historical revisionism, union-busting, etc., have been incredibly conservative ones implemented in the near past.

The Supreme Court, again, is not supposed to be implementing what the majority of Americans want but rather limiting democratic behavior based on the Constitution- i.e., telling us when we've done something unconstitutional. Their decisions can't be used to determine whether the US is under minority rule, but even then the SCOTUS's biggest cases- Hobby Lobby and Citizens United sided with conservative views.

Untrue. In SCOTUS's biggest cases, they sided with liberal views, I.E., allowing Obamacare and nationwide Gay Marriage.

Also, have you been to a southern/conservative state recently? None of what you said is true about the south, it's a bunch of s***.




Also, I hate the fact that the south US is considered more racist than the North. The North IS MUCH MORE RACIST THAN THE SOUTH. People are just more honest about it down here.

And if it's so racist- why are black people starting to come BACK TO THE SOUTH?

Because in the North, there's self imposed segregation. In the north, blacks are equal, but not accepted.

Highest receives of tax money? Please, when you can prove that, prove it. Conservatives have always pushed for less money being given away, not more.

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I encourage you to look at the numbers for yourself.

If the U.S. losses its power.

Goodbye Taiwan
Goodbye Ukraine
Goodbye Shiite Iraq

Oh and if you guys hate America so much then WHY DO YOU FUCKING LIVE IN IT!

Edited 7/7/2015 19:45:07

It's true that Southern states (generally) receive more government money. (Although plenty of non-southern states are very bad about it as well.) However, this isn't because, "Ha, southerners are stupid." It all boils down to history. The South got DEVASTATED in the Civil War and their economy was smashed, combine that with a failure of reconstruction and those states lost all hope of ever catching up with the north economically.

It's funny how that's the same logic that's used to argue that reparations are legitimate for blacks even today, but the populations that argue for those respective populations are entirely disjoint...

yes,poor South! Pure-eh,poor(was meant) murderers,poor racists,poor supporters of
racial discrimination...ooow...you were so bad to them...you devastated the*ehem*
wonderful landscape...ooo,you bad yankees,poor,poor southerners are poor with no,absolutely,no economy and "industry" left,right?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sherman's+march+to+the+sea&safe=active&client=ms-android-cricket&hl=en-US&source=android-browser&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=ZjucVcWQHsaosAWvw7KwCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw

To be fair Sherman's March was pretty much total war and half of it was to destroy everything in their path, from communications of the confederacy to the moral of the southern civilian populace.

The north was as racist as the south. They simply didn't like slavery or need it for the economy.

Even Abraham Lincoln was a racist.

Some southern states are doing better than northern states.

Texas is basically the economic champion of us right now, with Houston being leagues better than just about any other city. No literally. Houston is probably a contestant for best city in the world.

Florida and Virginia are looking good.

Louisiana and Mississippi have always been pretty screwed.

"We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience."

the south chose to base it's economy on slavery and agrarianism. they had just as much opportunity as the north to embrace an industrialist economy before the civil war. even before the civil war the north far outpaced the south economically. true they were devastated, but they had no one to blame but themselves.

they were on the wrong side of history and refused to admit it. their economy was based on slavery so of course it was devastated after the civil war.

Yes so the thousands of southerners with no choice over the economy of the southern states must be beaten like dogs, whipped like cattle and be displaced and robbed.

Wrong Genghis.

Pre Civil War, Louisiana and South Carolina were 2 of the overall richest U.S. States.

Though your right; Texas undoubtedly has the best economy... and is also the most conservatice state in the US.


And during the war... the south was literally destroyed. Lincoln gave orders to annihilate everything in order to destroy morale. They burned homes, farms, crops, forests, everything, and killed cattle.


Also: I have black relatives that live in NJ. NJ is EXTREMELY RACIST AGAINST BLACKS.
The North today is more racist than the south, so suggesting that the south would, if independent, be racist against blacks is absurd.

Edited 7/7/2015 22:14:55

yes,poor South! Pure-eh,poor(was meant) murderers,poor racists,poor supporters of
racial discrimination

This sarcasm falls flat when you remember that the North had all of that in abundance in the 1860s as well.

The north was as racist as the south. They simply didn't like slavery or need it for the economy.

This.Besides, Why have slavery when you can work immigrants like dogs in your factories at low wage? Better productivity than plantations and without the moral discomfort!

the south chose to base it's economy on slavery and agrarianism. they had just as much opportunity as the north to embrace an industrialist economy before the civil war. even before the civil war the north far outpaced the south economically. true they were devastated, but they had no one to blame but themselves.

Most of this is pretty true, however I feel the need to point out a few things:

1.Factories outpace agriculture by far economic wise, but the South's situation was made worse due to the North being economically abusive prior to the war.Northern elite saw the South as little more than a resource mine for their factories and pushed for many bills that benefited the North at heavy expense to the South. South Carolina almost started the Civil War way earlier over tariffs.

2.Majority of the South actually didn't have slaves. Even in the deep south you'd be hard pressed to find a 50% slave holding number. The blame for slavery falls on the Confederate government and the rich planter elite in the South, not it's common citizens.

3.The North went out of it's way to devastate the South, with things such as Sherman's march to the sea. It can be argued that the total war tactic was justified. There's no excuse for the horrible failure of reconstruction though. Radical Republicans were dead set on punishing the South and did everything in their power to stifle it's recovery. It's a shame Abe Lincoln didn't live, he would of focused on rebuilding the South rather than rubbing it's face in the dirt.

On of (what I believe) the real reasons the north (hated the south) was because the south was a threat. Imagine if the southern elites had started building factory's. They would've economically severely damaged the north.

Yes Abraham Lincoln would have done wonders for the south and America as a whole. Andrew Johnson was horrible.

@TL: The South wasn't in any position to industrialize. It only managed to catch up during the 1930s and 1940s because of government funding.

The reason there was such an economic disparity between the North and South, in fact, was because the South had a geographic disadvantage when it came to industrialization. The North had cheap hydropower which it used to industrialize, not to mention a massive comparative advantage in industry (since it had less-than-fertile soil, so even if the South had been more industrially efficient, the North would've likely still had a comparative advantage in industrial economic areas).

However, there were economic reasons. Imagine you're a laborer- a farmworker, perhaps. You get paid $7/hr and want to get paid $10, maybe even $15 at some point. But some jerk is working for free. How do you compete with free labor? Not that it was a competitive market, but freeing the slaves would've created one and led to more job opportunities for Northern workers.

This is why there was overwhelming support among laborers for the abolition of slavery (which also kept the British and French from recognizing the Confederacy, because the aristocrats would've had significant opposition from the majority of the population if they did so).

Edited 7/7/2015 22:43:41

Except for, because of sharecropping (which was practically slavery in itself) the civil war didn't really free many people.
Peacefully freeing slaves, even at the expense of it taking 20-40 more years to get rid of slavery, would've been better.


Abolitionists, through there often violent methods, hurt there own cause.