Skip to main content

In 1861 this nation had a rare opportunity. The cruel short-sighted traitors in the south wanted to secede from the United States and establish their own nation so they could keep their slaves. Unfortunately, President Lincoln feared losing 11 states would reflect badly on his legacy. Like an abusive husband, used physical violence to keep them from leaving him. As a result, these states have hung around the neck of the USA like a millstone.

If Lincoln had let the slave states go, what would our nation be like today?  The north would have had universal health care decades ago while the south would still be captive to health insurance companies. The north would have invested heavily in green energy during the Carter Administration, while the Reagan Administration in the south would have escalated mountain top removal for coal and deep drills in the Gulf of Mexico. The result today would be a healthy economy in the north, and a cascade of ever bigger ecological catastrophes in the south wreaking death upon its citizens. In short, the North would be like Switzerland and the South would be like Somalia.

Because Lincoln did not let these states go when he had the chance, their poisoned philosophy has divided this country, even reaching up as far as Wisconsin. Congress is at a standstill. It would have been better to sever the infected limb  in 1861 than let the infection climb up north.

Today governors in Republican-dominated states are refusing to participate in Health Care Reform leaving millions of their own citizens to die without coverage. Republicans in Congress have filibustered President Obama 300 times in the past two years to prevent him from doing his job. It would be so much easier to govern if the Far Right had their own country to run into the ground.

They could base their laws on the Bible. They could deny minorities and women the right to vote. They could force pregnancy on rape victims, and stone adulterers and blasphemers. They could teach their children the Earth is 9,000 years old and man and dinosaur co-existed just like in “The Flintstones”.  Think about it. Would it not be nice if Texas did not have any influence on our school books? The North could have FEMA and the South could pray for deliverance.

Granted, it would be strange to have a progressive secular country and a JesusLand bordering each other, but at least the Christian Taliban would be contained. Since the far right does not believe in science, their GNP would based upon agriculture.  The north would reign supreme in green technology and industry.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not too late.  Petitions have been filed by many states to withdraw from the union since President Obama’s re-election. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have all made their intentions clear on the White Houses’ “We the People” website. They need 25,000 signatures in 30 days for their petition to be considered.  Texas already has 22,000 signatures so only needs 3,000 more by December 9th.

This is our opportunity undo President Lincoln’s greatest error. We have a chance to cut these states loose once and for all.  Let us support their efforts to secede with our own petition. We have to let the president know that we are okay with them leaving. We will be better off without them.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Since Lincoln’s time home builders have created the duplex.  So you really can have progressives and regressives living under the same roof.  High school kids heading to college on the north side, home schooled kids heading to work genetically modified fields, collapsing coal mines or exploding oil rigs on the south side.

Letting these states secede would be much like a young couple breaking up and dividing their music collection. North keeps Disco, South keeps Gospel. North keeps Elton John, South keeps Hank Williams Jr. There might be a fight over the Chely Wright CD since she is both Country and Gay, but I think we would prevail. Most importantly, the North keeps all the gays and the South keeps all the rabid homophobes desperately trying to convince themselves they are straight.

I have started my own petition on “We the People”.  It is called, “Allow States to secede from the Union. Really, who wants them? We are better of without them.” The keywords for searching for my petition are: secede, traitors, slave owners, Lincoln.

If Lincoln had cut these states loose when he had the chance, they would have been begging to become part of the USA by now. Let us not miss this opportunity now that they are willing to leave. Please sign my petition.

One of the perks of letting them secede is seeing who Evangelical ministers will blame when a hurricane rips through their territory.

My petition states: In 1861 this nation had a rare opportunity. Traitors in the south wanted to secede from the United States so they could keep their slaves. President Lincoln feared losing 11 states would reflect badly on his legacy. Like an abusive husband, used physical violence to keep them from leaving him. As a result, these states have hung around the neck of the USA like a millstone.  

Because we lost the opportunity to let these states go when we had the chance, their poisoned philosophy has divided this country, even reaching up as far as Wisconsin. It would have been better to sever the infected limb in 1861 than let the infection spread.
Today many of these states want to secede from the union. Let the president know that we are okay them leaving.



10%19 votes
2%4 votes
1%2 votes
1%3 votes
1%2 votes
0%0 votes
22%40 votes
1%2 votes
8%15 votes
1%3 votes
46%84 votes
0%1 votes
2%4 votes

| 179 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If at first you don't secede, try, try again. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomFromNJ, Calfacon, IndieGuy
  •  Letting them secede would have been cruel... (26+ / 0-) African-Americans. That hasn't changed.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:17:00 AM PST

    •  A bit of secession history... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, wilderness voice, FG

      Initially, the rebel states were allowed to secede.

      In the months after Lincoln election in 1860, several southern states, angered by the election of "black Lincoln" (yep, that was one of the nicknames Lincoln earned for saying the institution of slavery should not be expanded to the western territories), announced plans to secede from the Union.  There was some debate in Washington about how to respond.  Some suggested that seceding states be allowed to leave peacefully, some suggested force be used to prevent a break-up of the union, and some suggested doing nothing with the idea that the secession passions would burn themselves out and seceding states would return to their senses and the union.

      Before Lincoln was inaugurated in March of 1861, seven states formally announced their secession from the union, and the establishment of the new Confederate government.  In seceding states, federal property, including mints with their bullion, post-offices, federal court-houses, and US Army installations and munitions, including all US Army troops in Texas, were surrendered to the Confederate government.  The administration of James Buchanon, who became president because of his support for southern slavery, did not recognize the new government, but took no actions against the seceding states.  Indeed, Buchanon ordered US Army generals to withdraw when confronted by Confederates to avoid bloodshed.

      In March of 1861, Pres. Lincoln was inaugurated.  He initially had no plans to invade southern states.  He declared the secession illegal and refused to recognize the Confederate government, but made no moves against it.  Only after the Confederates forces fired on the federal installation of Fort Sumner in Charlseston harbor did Lincoln order his Secretary of War to recapture lost federal property.

      Some historians call this period of secession before the outbreak of fighting "the secession winter".

      So it is not quite right to say southern states were allowed to secede, but for some period of months, the US government did nothing as states left the union and formed a new government.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:10:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because what the USA needs is less of it (7+ / 0-)

    yeah, right.
    I hope this is snark

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:18:11 AM PST

  •  You have your facts wrong (32+ / 0-)

    (why doesn't that surprise me?)
    No state has petitioned the government to secede from the  US. Instead, various and sundry citizens of all 50 states have signed a petition. Completely meaningless.
    For example, Texas has the most petitioners, but the total is less than 2% of the population.
    You sound like someone who lives in a safe blue district, and doesn't get out much, who judges people by where they're from instead of who they are (think Florida doesn't have a huge, wonderful LGBT population?) and who thinks excluding people is the way forward.
    In case you weren't paying attention, that is why the GOP lost the last election.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:26:31 AM PST

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      You sound like someone who lives in a safe blue district, and doesn't get out much, who judges people by where they're from instead of who they are (think Florida doesn't have a huge, wonderful LGBT population?) and who thinks excluding people is the way forward.
      I don't know how many times it has to be repeated that the divide here is urban/rural,  not Southern/Northern.

      This New York Times article spells it out very well:

      That we are still using the term “Confederacy” to describe the South and pointing to slave maps says a lot about how hard it is for the region to move beyond its historical reputation, however richly deserved, for one that reflects more current realities.

      Voters in Charlotte, N.C., Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, Birmingham, Ala., and even Jackson, Miss., gave Mr. Obama substantial majorities, not because they are out of step with the rest of the country but because they are part of the same urban-rural divide that drives voting everywhere.
      Here's an earlier diary on the subject, with actual electoral maps by county. If there are any "red states" left, it's a stripe down the middle of the country, which also happens to be the most rural area overall.

      It doesn't fit the diarist's prejudices, certainly, but it's a dispatch from the reality-based world.

  •  Actually, there's a big difference between... (12+ / 0-) care reform and human slavery.

    The Civil War was not fought - at least in the mind of most Northerners at the outset - to end slavery, but ultimately this was the result and the result far exceeded the intentions.

    Lincoln's "legacy" would have been to allow people perpetrating a monstrous crime to live "in peace," although there would have been no peace where slavery existed.

    One hopes you're being "tongue in cheek."   Politics is so insane these days, one never knows...

  •  Since Jimmy Carter is from Georgia, and (27+ / 0-)

    Ronald Reagan was from Illinois and California, I find it hard to accept that the USA would have had a Carter presidency and the CSA would have had a Reagan presidency.

    The fact is that you have no idea what would have happened if the Civil War had not occurred - other than, as Rich in PA says, it would have been cruel to African-Americans (though I guess they would have just been considered Africans since they would not be citizens of either the USA or the CSA.)

    I hope we can stop indulging in this stupidity of promoting secession, it is just as unproductive here as it is on the WH petition site.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:32:38 AM PST

  •  First off (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak, MaikeH

    I don't think any President would let a state secede without a war - they are very aware of their place in history and what their legacy will be.

    Secondly,  I don't think any President wants to be remembered as the guy who "lost Texas".

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:36:45 AM PST

  •  Hmm, looks like most commenters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    don't think this is a good idea - I'm sure they're equally supportive of China maintaining control of Tibet and Canada of Quebec (etc, etc).

    OTOH I'm not much into the "gee, I'm better/smarter/whatever than you and must keep you in our country for your own good" stuff - so I agree, the southern states should have long since gone their own way.

    •  China conquered Tibet and holds it as a buffer (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Ahianne, skohayes, bubbajim, IndieGuy

      against India. Tibet has an incalculably long and wildly different history, culture, political system than China, though they are now thoroughly managed by China.

      Quebec makes separatist noises periodically, but whenever it gets close it backs off. Mostly they're about winning cultural concessions, like making English Canada have signs in English and French, but having only French signs in PQ. They'd be sunk without the rest of Canada. Quebec has lots of hydro which it sells, it has Montreal, but most of it is empty. The industrial heart of Canada is in southern Ontario. The breadbasket is in the plains - Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan. Minerals are in Ontario and the west. The maritime provinces are big on fishing and seafaring-related business. It makes no geopolitical sense for them to actually secede, a fact recognized repeatedly by saner heads.

      An enemy or semi-hostile nation on much of our border would indeed change everything in geopolitics. In all international gamesmanship, one would be continually played off against the other, much as England considered intervening on behalf of the South during the Civil War to keep access to cotton for their textile industry. Fortunately, there were enough influential people there who realized that the North was going to kick the South's ass, but that it would also destroy the British fleet in the Pacific and elsewhere making in short order the same result they had experienced already in the Revolution and 1812.

      And, oh yeah, that stuff about slavery . . . . . .

      Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

      by p gorden lippy on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:38:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the Quebec (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        p gorden lippy

        separatists were quite serious about it. They didn't do it simply because they couldn't come up with a majority. I was in the Colisée in Quebec City on the night of the referendum, which the separatist mayor of Quebec had opened to the public so people could watch the returns together. People were truly upset and crying, and that was about half the province. People, both for and against, seriously discussed what they would do if Quebec moved towards separation. I followed the subject everyday in the le Devoir at that time and watched le Téléjournal every evening. I went to pro-Separatist rallies with some friends who were separatists. In fact, almost every Quebcois I knew was. I was asked many times if I would stay in Quebec or move to another province. It's really hard to convey the intensity to anyone who wasn't there. It was quite an experience.

        Regarding the signs in areas of Canada which are predominately Anglophone, it must be remembered that there are many Francophones in the rest of Canada. 25% of New Brunswick is Francophone, 15% of Manitoba and 10% of Ontario (at least those were the approximate figures in the mid-90's). They have rights under the Canadian constitution. I know the ins and outs of the Quebec language laws, at least as it existed at that time, but I'm afraid I have no idea how they work in the rest of Canada. I remember talking to a bilingual person from New Brunswick during that period. He told me that francophone Canadians outside of Quebec were truly scared by the possibility of Quebec leaving because, if they did, francophones would be such a small minority they would have almost no power.

        I could be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the Maritimes were poor compared to Quebec. You're probably right about the lack of natural resources. Until the Revolution tranquille, Quebec was a comparatively poor region. I don't think anyone in Quebec imagined that there was an economic advantage to separation. I'm drawing on memory here, but what I recall is that people there just wanted to establish that if was economically feasible, not necessarily advantageous. The opinions I heard were along the lines of a slight reduction in material wealth was worth the opportunity to be a people free of English domination.

        Anyway, the entire basis on which Quebec based its right to secede has relatively little to do with the Civil War in the United States. Although part of it was based on the fact that Canada was formed by the Union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, another part was based on notions of the right of peoples to self-determination. One of the slogans was "Nous sommes un peuple."  Many people there saw their efforts as anti-colonialist.

        •  I know that there are very serious (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          PQ separatists and that the subject is intensely emotional for many, but I've seen this movie many times, beginning in the very early '70's. Separatism has lost every time there's a chance to succeed at seceding. Not necessarily by a lot, but it loses nonetheless.

          I've spent a fair amount of time traveling in Quebec, from the Gatineau around the Gaspe. I love the art festivals in places like Baie St,. Paul. Montreal is one of the great cosmopolitan cities in North America. I love Quebec City particularly, and half my forebears are Quebecois from that city. I sympathize, and I understand that the French culture and language would disappear if not for special accommodations to preserve them.

          You're right about the maritimes being poorer than Quebec, but that includes Newfoundland, which will drag down anyone's average. And of course, there are parts of Quebec that are as poor as any areas of the maritimes.

          You also hint that English vs. French is about national colonialism vs. independence. I would only add that there is underneath all this an extremely old, simmering dispute between England and France. Neither of those present day nations is above exerting, even flaunting, their own cultural and political influences to score points in their conturies-old grudge match, and I think that is definitely a contributing factor to periods of unrest.

          I didn't intend to diminish the passion or seriousness of separatism, but rather wanted to emphasize that it has never been a majority, and they would be far worse off by many measures if they seceded, IMHO.

          Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

          by p gorden lippy on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:01:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm certainly not arguing in favor of Quebec (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            p gorden lippy

            separatism, in fact if it weren't for Quebecois nationalism, my marriage might have survived. (Note to self: Do not marry a nationalist from another nation.) It just happens that I got rather into the subject while I was there. It was pretty much unavoidable since, as I mentioned, just about everyone I know supported separation, the only exceptions being some indigenous people. Once it lost in that big referendum, most people knew that the moment was gone and would never come again, if for no other reason than the demographic changes.

            I met my husband, now ex-husband, on the Plain of Abraham and I sometimes joke that we continued the fight between the English and the French for the next five years. Actually, the feelings of the Quebecois towards the French are pretty damned complicated and frequently not at all good, but that's a whole other story. They have a love/hate relationship with both the French and the Americans and I personally think it's lousy to be either there. I remember reading a poll once that said that people in Quebec had a better view of Americans on average than the average Canadian.

            I'm not at all of French Canadian descent, by the way. I just sat down on the wrong park bench one day and forgot what my mother told me about not talking to strangers.

            I spent very little time in Montreal in large part because my ex-husband hated that city. From what Americans tell me it sounds like an interesting place, but I suspect very different from the rest of Quebec. Since I moved there because I married a Quebecois (a la souche, pure laine and all that garbage), I was thrown very suddenly into a culture and environment about which I knew nothing and had to learn really quickly.

            •  I should probably add, that my ex-husband's family (0+ / 0-)

              was from Beauce, which was a federalist stronghold. On an entirely personal level, I found little connection between the way people treated me and their politics. I could have a federalist complaining to me about how they hated English speakers and have a separatist tell me about how they loved American pop culture.

              Also, I should probably add, that part of the slogan "Nous sommes un peuple" was meant to promote the idea of a uniquely Quebecois identity, not a French identity.

              I know that there's a general recieved wisdom that the separtists dislike English speakers and are asserting a "French" identity, but it's actually a "Quebecois" identity that they're asserting. I think Americans over emphasize the influence of the French. They like to play that up in the tourist posters, but I didn't find much interest in French culture living there day to day. There's a slightly greater awareness of cultural products coming out of France than there is here, but that's more due to the shared language than a real tendency towards francophilia. I'm more of a francophile than most of the Quebecois I've met. People who speak with a French accent get mocked mercilessly. After arriving, I made a big effort to change my accent and speak with a more Quebecois accent.

              One interesting thing about living there was realizing that there's this whole little culture that no one knows anything about. I mean the contemporary culture, not the history. They have their own movies, their own music, their own tv shows, a whole little constellation of their own celebrities. I came back here and it was like I had been living on another planet. No one had heard of a couple of my favorites musical performers - and no one wanted to know either. Sometimes I feel like I spent four years in a black hole or in another universe. I try to show people something and they just turn their nose up. It's like this really weird little part of my life that was hugely important to me and which I can share with absolutely no one cause no one cares.

              Don't know why I'm going on like this. Sorry.

              •  France v Quebec (0+ / 0-)

                Back in the day, one of my associates was from Paris.

                When I brought up the subject of Canada, she dismissed them as barbarians.

                So much for that.

                The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                by alain2112 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 12:10:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I loved Montreal the times I'd been there. My (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              roots there and in Trois Rivieres go back to the earliest days of New France and I'm related by blood to far more famous Canadians than I am to famous Americans. I'm an American because my ancestors were born in both what is now the US and Canada and went back and forth freely (and often) until the 20th century. I speak only a little French though and when in Montreal, I don't even bother trying to communicate in French as I am an American and can get away with speaking English only. FWIW, my son is applying to McGill for college, so if he gets accepted, I may spend even more time in Montreal, a city I love.

              "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

              by pengiep on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:29:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I lived in Quebec during the referendum. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rashaverak, sfinx, IndieGuy

      They didn't have slavery. As it was, most minorities opposed separation because they were afraid that they'd be less justly treated by a Quebec government than they would be by the Canadian government.

      •  You, and the commenter above, seem (0+ / 0-)

        to be under the mistaken belief that the civil war was about  slavery,

        No, not really.

        But whatever, the current day USA is built on a multitude of historical fantasies.    So either way, I'm happy to let this one slide . . .

        •  No, I'm not a moron and I know damned well that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, sfinx, IndieGuy, trumpeter

          the civil war wasn't "about slavery." However, from the point of view of the present, we know that the end of slavery was one of the consequences of the Civil War and I don't think it's unreasonable to speculated that slavery would have lasted longer in a separate Confederate Country - but now I'm looking at the comment you responded to and I can't find where I said I thought the "Civil War was about slavery."

          I don't need you to let anything "slide" and am highly angered by your condescending attitude.

          You mentioned Quebec. I lived there. I was married to a fucking Quebecois Nationalist and probably know more about that subject than most Americans. You made a comment about Americans' attitude to Quebec separation. I'm under the impression that most Americans are opposed to it when they think about it at all. The treatment of minorities in Quebec is in fact something that comes up when people discuss that subject. Actually, my own opinion at the time was that there would be no significant change. One reason they had the referendum the year they did is because the non-French Canadian population was growing at a rate that they knew that the chance of voting to separate would decline as their percentage of the population declined.

          Why my knowing something about Canadian politics leads you to think I know nothing about American history is beyond me.

          •  OK, good clarification (0+ / 0-)

            clearly you are much superior to me in intellect (for example, before you said it, I DID think that Quebec had slavery - so thanks for setting me straight on that!).

            But, I might add, instead of being highly angered, I am tickled pink that you deigned to ease my ignorance just a little bit!

        •  There are essentially NO serious historians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          who would agree with your opening statement, and in fact, if you read the secession documents written by, um, the seceeding parties, they pretty much all refer explicitly to slavery as their motivation for doing what they did, as does the Confederate Constitution.

          There are many other statements from the course of the war made by participants, the most famous probably being those of Alexander Stevens, the Confederate VP, and Howell Cobb, sometime Confederate cabinet member, and sometime general all claiming that the war was about, um, slavery.

          I recall a recent lecture on CSPAN history in which a bunch of important historians - moderated by David Blight of Yale as I recall - all were aghast at the fallacious claims by some subset of Americans that the Civil War was about something other than slavery.

          Most considered the claim to the contrary to be a pernicious myth.    They didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

          However, over the years, one learns that the purveyors of historical fantasies are generally oblivious to what they are.

          I can imagine Blight et al rolling their eyes at this one.

  •  Huh? (13+ / 0-)
    "President Lincoln feared losing 11 states would reflect badly on his legacy. Like an abusive husband, used physical violence to keep them from leaving him."
    Is that really your take on the subject?

    It would have resulted in the Balkanization of North America.  How many more secessions would there have been?  From both the USA and the CSA?

    What of the western territories that had not yet achieved statehood?  What reason would they have had to bind themselves to these unstable entities?

    How long before the CSA began hostilities with the USA over the issue of fugitive slaves?  How many John Brown raids into the CSA might there have been?

    What of the border states?  11 states did not secede initially, just 7; 4 slave states never did.

    What becomes of the slaves?  Not that their march to freedom or justice was easy, or that it is yet complete, but how long might slavery have endured?  How far might it have spread?  Remember, southerners believed slavery had to continually expand to endure.  Would it have stretched to the southern tip of South America eventually?

    Think the Civil War was bad and bloody?  What you propose might have magnified it a hundredfold.  The wars it ignited might continue to this day.

    Worst case?  Perhaps.  But at least as likely as the millennium sunshine and rainbows you seem to think would result.

    And as to today, a handful of bozos posting or signing meaningless online petitions hardly equals states wanting to leave the union.

    Good lord...forget the morning coffee.  After this I need a drink.

    "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

    by Notthemayor on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:22:51 AM PST

  •  I think Lincoln did what was best for the country (7+ / 0-)

    at that time.  These states were guilty of treason against the United States.  Their act of secession created a situation where it was brother against brother, family vs family and a division in this country so great, that the United States was at risk. I am not sure the United States that we know, love, and cherish now would be the same country today had Lincoln agreed to or allowed the secession to stand.

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:31:50 AM PST

  •  Losing WWII would be huge (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notthemayor, Wee Mama, Rashaverak

    And I don't think a Divided States of America finds it nearly so easy to win.  What if the CSA sides with the Axis?  

    But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

    by thezzyzx on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:32:30 AM PST

    •  Hell, what if the CSA allies with the Kaiser? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Rashaverak, bubbajim

      "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

      by Notthemayor on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:36:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Much more likely that the North would side with (0+ / 0-)

        Kaiser. Many in the Midwest advocated it before actual entry into war.

        Why would a Libertarian CSA have more affinity with Germany - the Kaiser's or Hitler's - than a Communitarian USA?

        Southerners didn't elect Joseph McCarthy or support the German-American Bund.

        Finger-pointing is useless. All Americans are the beneficiaries of a campaign of genecidal conquest, and you want to claim the moral high ground on the basis of a higher level of support for social welfare programs in your favored region.

        The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

        by bubbajim on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:12:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When I said "you" I meant original poster. (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry, notthemayor.

          The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

          by bubbajim on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:13:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two campaigns of genocidal conquest, actually. (0+ / 0-)

            One in the Americas and one in Africa.

            (Well, perhaps more like a series of smaller campaigns of genocidal conquest in the two locations.)

            And on the cheery note...

            "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

            by Notthemayor on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:14:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I assume that the original poster assumes (0+ / 0-)

              that emancipation exempts the non-former-slaveholding states from guilt in the African genocide. I'll give that a pass. But how can anyone claim not to benefit from the theft of the very continent on which we live?

              One of the chief errors non-historians  make in examining history is to judge the actions of those in the past by the standards of the present. It's not very intellectually honest to look at the past that way. But if one is going paint all Southerners as racist theocrats one can just as well paint all Americans as a murdering horde.

              I realize that the real beef is with the way a majority of the electorate in the South votes in the present. I don't agree with that, myself. But it's the height of hypocrisy to pretend that all of our nation's ills can be laid at the feet of it's poorest, weakest region.

              The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

              by bubbajim on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:03:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The 13 original states... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Were all slave states, though 7 of them adopted emancipation.

                And a great deal of wealth was accumulated there through the Atlantic slave trade prior to its abolition.

                So all of those states share in the original sin of slavery.  And the non-slave states admitted afterward were certainly not bulwarks of racial equality.  Antebellum Illinois was certainly no less racist than antebellum Kentucky.

                I suppose it would be folly for me to pretend that I can understand the mind of the south, if such a thing can even be said to exist.

                It's not just coincidence, I suspect, that the maps of current electoral outcomes mirror the maps of slaveholding America.  The question is why.

                I don't think that racism can be dismissed as a factor, though racism is certainly not exclusive to the south.  

                Outside of the race issue, what are the explanations for the shortage of progressivism in the south?

                As for secession, which is where this whole thing started, I see no reason to treat the online ranting of a few lunatics as an indication of the sentiment of an entire region.  

                Or to consider signing one of these ridiculous online declarations of separatism equal to the actual act.  I'm certain many of those who signed them would not really, actively support the concept if the issue became real.

                Ah, this country and its ghosts...most of which, sadly, are not friendly ones.

                "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

                by Notthemayor on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:38:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Who me? (0+ / 0-)

            What was it you wrote again? I can only scroll down.

  •  Feh. n/t (5+ / 0-)

    Ancora Impara--Michelangelo

    by aravir on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:39:09 AM PST

  •  Likening Abraham Lincoln to an abusive spouse (16+ / 0-)

    is really poor form, even in a snarky context.

  •  Harry Turtledove (8+ / 0-)

    Has written a multiple volume series of alternative history novels about the series of increasingly destructive wars between the Union and the Confederacy after the South has won the Civil War.
       The alternative history is very plausible.
       The real life outcome of the North-South conflict was probably the optimal one.

    •  For those not familiar: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Harry Turtledove, PhD, Professor of History, UCLA.

      He doesn't just pull his ideas out of his ass (cough newt cough), but actually does a lot of research, and tries to look outside of his personal box for viewpoints.

      Many don't like his holographic style (many characters in widespread places with a diverse POV), but he is very good, and very careful not to write dogma.

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:27:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can slaves from my back porch! (0+ / 0-)

    That would be the sum total of foreign policy experience from a moron from the northernmost state, given your scenario.

    Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand. Tear Ayn, the GOP, and Fox News new orifices; laugh and enjoy. @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:43:11 AM PST

    •  Good god, there is nothing that destroys humor (0+ / 0-)

      like bad editing.

      Wow.  I omitted the word "see" , as in, I can SEE slaves from my back porch.

      You just can't find good editing help these days for less than 3 bucks an hour!  What's this country coming to???!!!

      Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand. Tear Ayn, the GOP, and Fox News new orifices; laugh and enjoy. @floydbluealdus1

      by Floyd Blue on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:50:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  *facepalm* (5+ / 0-)

    Without the Civil War, what would have happened to the slaves? Screw them, I guess.

    And you do realize that morons from ALL FIFTY STATES have put petitions up, right? Which makes your diary fairly meaningless.

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 05:48:04 AM PST

  •  Not this again. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At the price of slavery continuing, allowing the south to secede would have been a bad bargin. My impression is that the north would have been a wealthier country, but is that our only value? Whether or not the north would have been "progressive" in the way we think of it today is a much more complicated matter.

  •  Yeh. (0+ / 0-)

    Had Lincoln not made that dumb move, he might have been better remembered today. As it is....four score and what? Duh. What does that even mean?

    He might have had things named after him as you have had. Thousands flock to see the tek writer memorial each year.

    I know you must be proud.

    Are you out of your !#$%^!#ing mind?

    Facts matter. Joe Biden

    by kpardue on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:16:24 AM PST

  •  Since the history of the world would have (0+ / 0-)

    unfolded in such a different way that many of us (indeed most of us) would not be here, I am not willing to pine for a lost opportunity that would have left millions of African Americans enslaved.

    Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

    by Bobs Telecaster on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:20:35 AM PST

  •  A snark? If not - (0+ / 0-)

    with all of the variables that go into historical developments, such conclusions are meaningless. The dynamic interplay of people, events and culture are impossible to know. To conjecture about what would happen over a hundred fifty years starting with one big "if" is just so much silliness. Having said that, if the point is to simply draw attention to the regional differences with regard to social, political and economic issues as they have evolved, it has some merit and makes a point.

    If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we aren't really living. - Gail Sheehy

    by itisuptous on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:39:17 AM PST

  •  Is this a joke or simple ignorance? (4+ / 0-)

    "Unfortunately, President Lincoln feared losing 11 states would reflect badly on his legacy. "

    If this is not a joke, you need to spend some time reading Lincoln's writings.

    Our reason is quite satisfied ... if we can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized... Our faith is faith in someone else's faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case. - William James

    by radical empiricist on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:15:07 AM PST

  •  This again? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is this obsession with secession on Daily Kos?

  •  Thanks for all the Comments (0+ / 0-)

    You convinced me that there are no enough people with a sense of humor to get a significant number of signatures on my petition, so I deleted the draft I was saving.

    I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site