Secession: It’s Constitutional

Walter Williams, WND, November 27, 2012

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. {snip}

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. {snip}

{snip} The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Stentorian_Commentator

    I guess Williams is old enough that he doesn’t give a rat’s arse what people think of what he says, but it saddens me to think that although we think so much alike, I feel I still have to be on guard because of the general divide of the races.

    • Germanacus

      Walter Williams is exceedingly rare among the black masses. One in ten million. He is a credit to his race.

      • ed91

        big deal………….
        so are 85% of the white men in this country.

      • Gracchus123

        He is a credit in spite of his race.

    • Indiana Guy

      He knows that an unprecedented economic destruction is coming, and an unprecedented reaction to those that brought about this destruction.

      • Gracchus123

        The takers vs. the makers.

  • Sloppo

    It seems surreal to me when I consider the number of years that I thought of Abe Lincoln as some kind of hero without thinking much about the fact that he caused about 625,000 people to be killed and destroyed meaning of the US constitution.

    • Bobbala

      You’ve got plenty of company … That free, compulsary, public education in the Communist Manifesto was for a reason.

      • JohnEngelman

        Reactionaries prefer an ignorant populace.

        • SLCain

          Liberals and socialists prefer and ignorant populace, perhaps even a stupid one. They like people like you.

        • Liberalsuck

          Yes, most liberals are reactionary, illogical knee-jerk people. Thanks for pointing that out.

        • [email protected]

          what’s wrong with ignorance? some of the smartest people i know are ignorant…

        • Indiana Guy

          people like yourself then

        • Bobbala

          Can you even imagine a world where literacy, reason, logic, science, etc. exist without government control?

        • David Ashton

          Marxist-Leninists and Chinese Communists prefer a universally brainwashed populace, with uncontrolled private and home education illegal. So did your old pals in the CPUSA or at any rate their leaders – read “Toward Soviet America”. As for today, “No tolerance for the Right” (Marcuse, Cultural Marxist),

        • Indiana Guy

          do you have anything other than name calling to offer?

      • JohnEngelman

        The Communist Manifesto

        Demands of the Communist Party in Germany [1]

        17. Universal and free education of the people.

        http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Peterson/100003526607299 Jesse Peterson

      That number has been revised upward to over 700,000 to reflect the number of civilians killed during the war.

      • Sloppo

        I think it would be very difficult to account for all the people who died if you count soldiers who died in battle, the ones who died later from wounds, the civilians who died … and the people who died as a result of their dead fathers and husbands not being there to provide for and protect them anymore. I imagine that the last category would be a large number, but it could never be counted. I suppose “honest” Abe was the American murderer who took the most lives.

        • C_C_Conrad

          If we think about ALL of the wars fought between white people over the past few centuries we will see that the greatest cause of our wars are the lack of, 1) racial unity, 2) the lack of reason, 3) the lack of logic.
          ………
          Jack’s War

          • Svigor

            The unity you aspire to is a pipe dream, every bit as much as is the dream of a united humanity. And for similar reasons. While I am very much in favor of white populations living in peace with one another, the idea of white unity makes little sense.

          • Liberalsuck

            even in Asian, African (not black), Latin, and Muslim ethnicity and faiths, they quarrel and fight. There is not unity among them either.

          • ed91

            in regards to looting from whites there is much unity.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Yes, you’re correct that people of the same race and culture still fight and quarrel among themselves. They do so just as siblings do. Siblings will often despise each other and even harbor deep resentments. But when it’s time to fight for their blood and family, they will unite and band together! In some instances, prior sibling rivalries will even end as they are forced to put aside differences and fight for a common cause. I think Whites will do the same if they deeply sense their own survival is at stake.

          • bluffcreek1967

            I would not be so sure about that, especially if things get really bad for Whites and they finally realize their own survival is at stake. Moreover, although Whites will never experience complete and total unity (which race or culture of people does so perfectly anyways?), they may unite sufficiently enough to spare themselves some sort of genocide or racial slavery in whatever form that might take. I would not even rule out the possibility that Whites might somehow reverse their current plight. Our people have accomplished great things in the world, and there are still many brave men and women in our ranks.

          • C_C_Conrad

            “The unity you aspire to is a pipe dream, every bit as much as is the dream of a united humanity. And for similar reasons. While I am very much in favor of white populations living in peace with one another, the idea of white unity makes little sense.”

            You may be right, but then a fella needs a dream doesn’t he? Keep in mind that if we aim high we might miss and hit a lower mark. But if we aim low we are almost certain to get just that. I guess that I’m a bit quixotic, that’s why I ignore Tim Wise when he says that we whites are finished & that there’s nothing that we can do about it.
            ………
            Jack’s War

          • Greg Thomas

            What have we done to serve this?

          • bluffcreek1967

            It was wrong, but this is what happens when Whites fall asleep. This is what happens when we accept liberalism in all its forms. This is what happens when TV, movies, sports, novels and porn takes up most of our attention. This is what happens when we place into office politicians who don’t have our best interests at heart. This is what happens when a nation completely buys into political-correctness and multiculturalism. Like the frog in the kettle, when we finally recognize our imminent danger, it’s too late.

          • David Ashton

            “All that is needed for the triumph of cultural marxism is that Engelmen do nothing.”

        • IstvanIN

          I have always called him a mass murderer and a war criminal. A low tech Stalin.

      • heef

        …think of those who weren’t killed but, instead, maimed. Gruesome, considering the state of medicine back then.

    • So CAL Snowman

      I agree that Lincoln was a traitor to the Republic and the worst president in U.S. history, but he was assassinated for a reason.

      • Bobbala

        That’s not the official story. He’s the universally beloved savior of the Union.

        • IstvanIN

          The official line is that Lincoln is beloved. But how truly loved by literate people is he?

          • JohnEngelman

            In political science, historical rankings of Presidents of the United States are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults.

            George Washington, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

          • SLCain

            “Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion.”

            Liberal academics. Fawning lackeys of our current system. Suckers of the public teat. Why should the opinions of these parasites matter at all?

          • JohnEngelman

            Your opinion, based on hatred rather than knowledge, is of no value at all.

          • george00

            It would have been much less trouble for the government to outlaw slavery and pay the owners a fair price for their slaves and send the blacks back to Africa than the cost of the Civil War (lives and money). The belief that Lincoln was the worst President in History is based on common sense.

          • JohnEngelman

            For benefiting from an evil institution the slave owners deserved no compensation. Slavery was America’s original sin. If it had never been allowed, the United States would not have a large black population, and we would be better off.

            Plantation owners should have paid whites to grow their cotton and tobacco, or whites should have formed communes to grow it. Cotton and tobacco, unlike other crops, seem to be crops that benefit from economies of scale.

            The American South produced the best cotton and tobacco at the best prices before and after the Civil War, whether the cotton and tobacco was produced by slaves of free laborers.

            During the presidential election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln won 39.8 percent. He did not campaign on a promise to free the slaves. Without the Civil War he would have lacked the support to do so. The Thirteenth Amendment passed because most Northerners wanted to punish the South for provoking the Civil War.

          • Svigor

            Nonsense. The gov’t tolerated and legitimized slavery, and had an obligation to compensate slave owners in the event they outlawed slavery. If the gov’t had not allowed slavery, it would not have happened; slavery is the federal gov’t’s original sin.

          • JohnEngelman

            Tax payers who did not own slaves had no obligation to compensate those who did. It would have been more just to force the slave owners to pay their ex slaves the back wages they would have earned as free laborers.

            During his march to the sea Gen. Sherman gave the former slaves his soldiers freed forty acres and a mule. If that policy had been followed throughout the conquered Confederacy by confiscating and dividing plantation property, and if forty acres and a mule had also been given to landless whites, the Reconstruction Era would have been more successful.

          • george00

            “Tax payers who did not own slaves had no obligation to compensate those who did.”

            Tax payers pay for the land of people who have highways built on them because it is a benefit to all of us and tax payers should have paid slave owners for their slaves so the government could send them back to Africa because it would have been a benefit to all of us.

          • JohnEngelman

            Slave owners had grown rich from an evil institution that reduced the standard of living of non slave owning whites in the South. Non slave owning whites were the vast majority of whites in the South.

            Slave owners did not deserve to be compensated. They deserved to be punished. Their land should have been confiscated and divided into small family farms for ex slaves and landless whites.

            During the Civil War poor Southern whites died to defend an institution that kept them poor.

          • Gracchus123

            “They deserved to be punished. ”

            Slavery was legal. Why should they have been punished?

          • JohnEngelman

            They should have been punished for benefiting from an evil institution. It was their greed and laziness that brought the slaves over in the first place. It was their arrogance that caused the Civil War. They were the only people who benefited from slavery. The government should have taken everything they had.

          • george00

            The whole point was to resolve the problems that came from having blacks in this country and do it in the simplest way possible. Taking land form some whites and giving it to blacks would be extremely complicated and the blacks would still be here. Think of how much better off this country would be today if the government would have bought the blacks and sent them back.
            On other posts you write about the crime that blacks cause and now you write about how they should have been kept in the country and given land. Do you like crime?

          • JohnEngelman

            The blacks are still here. Some of them were sent to Liberia. I do not know why more were not. There does not seem to have been a lot of support for it. Those who were sent over should have been sent with some money to buy land to farm, or to establish themselves as small businessmen or independent tradesmen. The former slave owners should have been forced to pay for their compensation, and the price of the boat trip to Africa.

          • Indiana Guy

            once again, it is you that is wrong. His opinion is based on the observation that there is a collection of people who approve some ideas and disapprove others. The basis for their approval is their agenda. There is no hatred in that observatyion. It is accurate. You have a kneejerk reaction ,of hatred, to anyone who sees through the falseness of academia. This is because you are of that world, it is how you define yourself, and this is what you build your ego on. It is a false foundation and you hate and slander people that recognize this.

          • JohnEngelman

            I hate no one. I love debating controversial issues. I think I am skilled at it.

          • Indiana Guy

            you do not debate, you do not respond when the flaws of your statements are pointed out, you just start the name calling, that is not “debate”

          • george00

            “academia”? John? He seems very illogical and uninformed to me.

          • Indiana Guy

            you just love to hear yourself spout your collection of stored facts. Memorization is not intelligence. One can memorize a whole encyclopedia of facts without being able to understand any of them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Memorization certainly does require intelligence.

          • Indiana Guy

            no more intelligence than that of a chimp that can memorize certain symbols and that they will give him a specific reward when he presses them. Memorization is the LOWEST form of intelligence. Without understanding, it is useless.

          • ed91

            kennedy was one of the first, modern media creations.

          • JohnEngelman

            I agree that John Kennedy is overrated. Presidents are often blamed or credited for factors beyond their control. John Kennedy was president before the 1960s turned bad with the black ghetto riots and the War in Vietnam, so it is easy to imagine that if he had lived they would not have happened.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Funny though, President Kennedy said some things publicly that would have definitely been out of sorts with the modern Democratic party (e.g., taxes, etc.). Regardless, he’s never been much of a hero to me and he was certainly one of the first media-driven Presidential candidates.

          • JohnEngelman

            Republicans love to quote John Kennedy for his comments about the revenue building benefits of tax cuts. There are two things one should keep in mind.

            First, reducing the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent is not the same as reducing it from 70 percent to 28 percent. That is what Ronald Reagan did. He tripled the national debt.

            Second, In 1965 the top tax rate was reduced from 91% to 70%. Tax receipts increased from $48,697 million to $48,792 million. That represented an increase of $95 million. The previous year, when the top tax rate was still 91 percent income tax receipts increased by $1,109 million.

            My figures for income tax receipts were compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. They are not adjusted for inflation. Income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of economic growth and inflation. They nearly always increase more when the top tax rate is not reduced, and even more when the top tax rate is increased.

            For example, in 1944 the top tax rate rose from 88 percent to 94 percent. Income tax receipts rose from $6,505 million to $19,705 million.

            http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=857&transpose=row

            http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

            This may seem like a hijack of a thread about secession. Nevertheless, the Republican delusion about the revenue building benefits of tax cuts is widely believed, and deserves to be exposed as a lie.

          • shmo123

            Only an idiot pays 91% of any income to the tax man. Most people in those brackets use lawyers, loopholes, and deductions. I’m sure that that amount of people that actually paid the top rate was very few. The few that do usually leave for more welcoming climes before the tax man knows what they owe.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814

            The bracket for the 91% rate was so high and there were so many loopholes and deductions that exceedingly few dollars of earned income were ever subject to the 91% rate.

          • JohnEngelman

            A high top tax rate gives the government considerable power over the economic behavior of rich people. Also, the higher the top tax rate is, the more they end up paying.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            For example, in 1944 the top tax rate rose from 88 percent to 94
            percent. Income tax receipts rose from $6,505 million to $19,705
            million.

            Even you realize that there’s a correlation-causation issue in that statement.

          • JohnEngelman

            It is difficult to prove causal relationships in history because many factors influence an important event. Nevertheless, a persistent pattern does indicate cause.

            I challenge anyone using the data I posted to find a time when raising the top tax rate did not increase income tax receipts, or when reducing the top tax rate increased income tax receipts more than they increased the previous two years when the top tax rate had not been reduced.

          • David Ashton

            “A persistent pattern indicates a cause.”
            Remember that when we take you again through the New Left, Black Power and Cultural Marxist “agenda-networking” data.

          • Bobbala

            If you want to be a slave, fine. Don’t volunteer me.

    • Indiana Guy

      he was only considered a hero during the 20th cdentury

  • Bobbala

    Might makes right. If you don’t know that you’re just naive. A violent enough mob trumps any reasoned rational thought you can come up with. George Zimmerman should flee for his life.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      “Might makes right.”

      ===

      David Yeagley, a Commanche, in his address at the 2012 American Renaissance conference, made your point in the Q & A session:

      YEAGLEY: Anybody that claims a right something is basically a coward . . . The only people that have rights are the people that have the strength. That’s just the way it is. It’s not right or wrong. It’s just the way it is.

      • Svigor

        People who understand whites understand that right makes might, not the other way around. The perception thereof, anyway.

        • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

          All of western literature and art — to which, in depth, sophistication and beauty no other cultural tradition compares — suggests you are essentially correct.

  • mike

    Americans who want to control the lives others and those who just want to be left alone? Precisely who I ask are the folks suppose to be in each group? I submit it depends on whose ox is being gored at the particular moment. Mr williams may think white Republican men comprise a large percentage of those in the group who want to be left alone, but then again not so much when it comes to imposing their predominately fundamentalist views about abortion on others or their interventionist views over foreign wars.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Glad to see that you are more concerned with Muslim terrorists and filicidists than you are white Americans.

      • mike

        No, you are dead wrong. My primary interest is in pushing the interests of white, but that is not going to be achieved by sophistry. Ultimately arguments like those made by Mr williams can be turned and twisted in any direction and are not very productive.

  • Anon

    Completely irrelevant. Our country hasn’t been a legitimate constitutional republic since at least WWII. One could argue since the Civil War. That war was literally waged on this right….and lost.

    Our country is a type of bananna republic with thousands of laws, most of which are contradictory and/or unconstitutional, that may or may not be enforced depending on the desires of a small oligarchy that really runs this country with varying amounts of power. Outcomes in “trials” are usually determined by who can bribe the most powerful oligarch, often to blatantly set aside our “laws”. The last decade has shown a disturbing trend where an oligarch can decide someone is a criminal and destroy them like a criminal, when no law has been broken (Rodney King officers, those border patrol agents, George Zimmerman etc.)

    The bottom line. Unless you are willing and able to band together in a large enough group that you are an army, not a handful of “criminals” and willing and able to overthrow our ultra-corrupt government (not hard mind you….our country relies on “soft” power for most things) and, far more importantly, are ready, willing and able to replace our government with something that is preferably better, but at least is functional. Unless that situation exists, you (and I mean both individuals and groups….even whole states) have no rights.

    The current crop of jokers is all too happy to demonstrate to you that you have no rights. Mostly, they just ignore you (more to the point, your position is complete blacked out of the public discourse through a bizarre level of media control). But, more than one person has ended up bluntly assassinated, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    For example, the one EMT that obviously saw something she should not have during the supposed Batman Movie Massacre. Suddenly, she decided to go for a swim (wearing all her clothes) in her pool at home and “drowned”. That’s what our government does to people they just don’t laugh at and turn into non-entities.

    Being right is irrelevant. Only power matters. If you have a little bit of power and say the wrong thing, you’ll end up in the trunk of somebodies car. What is needed is enough power, gathered without notice that you become too dangerous to do that to. A good example is the Golden Dawn. The scum causing all the problems in greece would love to round up every Golden Dawn member and hang them. They don’t dare. If they try, lots of people will be hanged but it won’t be members of the Golden Dawn.

    That is unlikely to develop as a scenario in the US. Instead, a collapse is likely. Our oligarches are an ultra-corrupt and dysfunctional lot. But so are our people. Obama is obviously a crackhead, headed to self destruction a long time ago. It’s OBVIOUS. Almost nobody says anything even when he shows up in front of cameras looking like Dave Chappelles crackhead character.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeIom1vq4

    The best bet for people (all white people from individuals and groups) is to prepare for what you would do if government simply disappeared tomorrow. You wake up and the TV is snow. Government buildings are padlocked. Police show up but have no guidance above the local level. Some state governments are intact (you are doing very well if you know which ones are likely vs which ones are not). People are gathering around going, what are we going to do now?

    The person with a good answer to that question and the rudiments of a system already in place will be the next government.

    That should be the goal of white nationalists everywhere. To prepare to shoulder the responsibility in the wake of the ultimate in irresponsibility.

    • Guest

      Could you elaborate on this EMT? This is the first time I’ve heard of it and would like to know more. Thanks.

      • Anon

        That is one of the more disturbing aspects of what goes on in this country. Even fantastic, spectacular and extremely worrisome news stories are either censored completely or, more often, mentioned briefly and then drain down the memory hole as we are bombarded by a non-stop flow of completely unimportant “news” items to distract us. A few months go by and even that brief mention becomes hard to find. Many links to such news items just disappear.

        Here is one that is still active for now. At the time, a few people were taking notice simply because it was so odd that it got almost no news coverage at all.

        A few months from now, this link will probably disappear. Nobody will know who Jenny Gallagher was or why her death was so suspicious.

        But that is nothing. In a couple of years, few people will know what you mean if you mention the Batman Massacre. We are practically Winston Smith living in Oceania.

        http://fredw-catharsisours.blogspot.com/2012/08/nurse-who-saw-everything-at-aurora.html

    • David Ashton

      1. Secure the heritage. 2. Bear and educate children. 3. Master IT technology as well as content. 4, 5 & 6 are possible in the “USA” if not in England.

  • [email protected]

    Certainly secession is Constitutional – 10th Amendment – Case closed…

  • Rational Being

    Anyone who thinks that secession is the answer is planning on giving up a substantial portion of our country rather than fighting for it.

    I fail to understand why anyone would want to give up one square inch of the United States for any reason. Deport the illegal aliens. Fight to ensure that a conservative and white American agenda is restored. Put a stop to the degeneracy of our cultural institutions.

    As a rhetorical question: Do you think that our forefathers fought for a country only to see it torn asunder?

    I have no desire to lionize Lincoln. He was just a man. But this is a country that countless men have fought and died for. We owe it to them to defend it rather than give in to those who would give up even an infinitesimal part of it to the aliens and the invaders. Lincoln is irrelevant. The lives of those who gave up everything for America, are not.

    Let us think carefully before lending our voices to those who would rip this nation to shreds.

    There must be a more reasonable way than to give up that which has been won in the name of freedom and civilization.

    • GrandpaT

      There isn’t a nation in the world for which countless men haven’t fought and died. Most of these nations and their men are gone and forgotten. The Old Republic is dead. It’s time to bury its corpse.

    • C_C_Conrad

      I tend to agree with Rational Being. Think it over for a moment, did the anti-whites take over the country by seceding? We cannot win by giving, we win by taking. I like the quote from the movie 300 – “Take from them everything, but give them nothing”!
      …………
      Jack’s War

      • Liberalsuck

        We have 100 million nonwhites and at least that many stupid, illiterate, ghetto-worshiping, brainwashed anti-white white people that would be against you. 50 years of propaganda and cultural marxist have tainted so many younger white people that they wouldn’t have a problem seeing other whites being killed. More and more of these younger whites even on blogs where they are anonymous are leaving ass-kissing “I’m a good white person that hates racist whites’ comments on there.

    • Yakbak

      “Anyone who thinks that secession is the answer is planning on giving up a
      substantial portion of our country rather than fighting for it.”

      The fight is over. We lost. I registered and voted for the first time – walked over a mile in the cold to vote. It meant nothing.

      It is best to quit while we are ahead. This has precedent in history. Napoleon was once offered generous peace terms which he rejected in favor of war. As he was dying in St. Helena, I bet he wished he had quit before he lost it all.

      • IstvanIN

        Sometimes it is best to withdrawal, regroup, learn from our mistakes, and start over.

    • Liberalsuck

      Really? Do you really think you can just deport over 100 million nonwhites who are probably well armed, have lots of legal protection and at a time when most whites and the government will be against you because that would be ‘racist and mean’? Good luck with that. Seriously, the ONLY chance for whites to have a homeland is maybe in the Pacific Northwest and/or the Midwest. Those areas have a lot of natural resources and have always had the largest amount of conservative, patriotic white people. Even at that, those people in those areas will be in a daily fight for their survivial, much like the characters in Mad Max or even in the recent tv series called The Walking Dead fighting zombies everyday in a post-apocalyptic world.

      • saxonsun

        So what do we do with the large number of non-whites in the Midwest?!

        • JohnEngelman

          Pretend that they will either leave when their welfare benefits are eliminated, or that they will be easy to chase out.

          The problem with those delusions is that there are more whites on welfare than non whites, and non whites will fight back.

          • Svigor

            Blacks most certainly will leave if their welfare is cut off, and they are otherwise made to see the other grass as greener. Why wouldn’t they?

            As for “non-whites will fight back,” who cares? That’s what the police are for. “Non-whites will fight back against whites who want to be free” is a losing argument. It is no more persuasive than telling the IRA “the Brits will fight back” or Russian dissidents that “the Soviets will fight back” or the blacks in South Africa that “the whites will fight back,” or the Palestinians that “the Jews will fight back.” Of course one’s enemies oppose what is good for one’s self; what else is new?

    • Luca

      Sometimes you have to “fallback”, regroup your forces and mount a solid defense and then a counter-attack, retaking the ground previous lost. Right now your allies are too spread out and need to be consolidated. Maybe we can all meet in Texas and talk about it. First, we need a strong leader. Not a nut-case radical.

  • libertarian1234

    “What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.”

    But a government split apart by varying factions of tribes constantly at each other’s throats, and an economy that is headed toward dissolution is not a government that is a mighty overwhelming force, especially if its own personnel are breaking along lines of politics, race and ethnicity. And especially if there are sporadic clashes and austerity riots from coast to coast.

    A severe weakening caused by a thousand cuts in a constant, ongoing crisis will have even the government willing to agree to secession just to stop the warfare and chaos.

    And the government’s position could develop far worse than even that.

    The seed has been planted. When it grows to maturity, the protests for sovereignty by Quebec and the Basque region, will look tame by comparison.

    Secession will occur. Sovereign territories will eventually be the norm.

    • BAW

      Our mighty federal government brought a lot of brute force to Iraq and Afghanistan…and struggled mightily to pacify those countries to no avail, despite two costly wars against poorly trained and equipped goat-herders with AKs, RPGs, and IEDs.

      • Indiana Guy

        and the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who fought in those operations would be defecting to support the secessionist states. The federal government will be left with their gay and black soldiers

    • Dr. X

      Secession? HAAAA! How many of the white trash out there are going to secede from EBT, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment, Sec. 8, or their unionized government job???? Face it, people, these entitlements are not only a problem among then minority population. The Government has bought off enough whites through various forms of welfare to make secession impossible. People today do not want freedom, because it entails too much risk and too much responsibility. There’s not going to be any secession. Eventually, though, there WILL be a COLLAPSE — a different matter entirely.

      • IstvanIN

        A white country might actually be able to provide those whites jobs commensurate with their skills. They might not need welfare. When I was in school all the janitors, maintenance men and lunch ladies were white. The garbage men were white. Whites did all sorts of jobs that now go to assorted imported minorities. A new nation could employ its own.

        • Libearlsuck

          I say if you cut off welfare and make all the people work (black, white, mexican, etc) and require them by law to stick around and raise their kids, they will be less likely to commit crimes and be lowlives. They will be too tired from working honest jobs and taking care of their families. That’s just a theory. If we do break off into enclaves, be it racial or political, it must be imperative that the new nations make it so companies can easily and cheaply do business there, that they can provide a lot of jobs, that the people don’t get any government help of any kind except private charity, they have to save for their own retirements, they have to pay for their own kids and clamp down hard on violent criminals.

      • Indiana Guy

        Most of the US military is what you would classify as “white trash”. They will be fighting for the New secessionist states.Do you think your rainbow coalition types will be any match against them? For the first two years of the Civil War the North was losing, and losing rather badly. Only then did Lincoln try to hang some great moral cause on the war and make it specifically about ending slavery.Before he signed the emancipation proclamation, a norther victory did not automatically mean an end to slavery.
        So what “moral cause” is the left going to use to rally people around the old federalists? Redistribution of white people’s money to blacks? A slow genocide of whites through redistribution and racist state laws? Are the leftists going to try to say it is against racism when they are the ones with racist quota laws on the books?
        Face it, the left has already LOST this battle in the minds of the people. It is just a matter of time until actions and events catch up with this. You have much arrogance, but that is a bad thing to bring to a gun fight.

        • Svigor

          ‘Twernt morality that lent victory to the Yankees. It was money and population.

      • saxonsun

        And there’s a lot of white trash too.

      • Gracchus123

        I agree with you that a collapse will come, then the checks stop. That’s when the opportunities will surface.

        This is why I think it is so important for people who think like us to ORGANIZE. When the opportunities present themselves, we need to be able to act, act fast, and act intelligently.

      • ageofknowledge

        I agree with Dr. X. It’s not going to happen in our lifetimes. The reality is that a large number of whites in this country adhere to the modern liberal value system they were indoctrinated with in the public education system and would actively fight against you if you tried to secede. They already believe that you’re all a bunch of nazis and KKK members and once the federal government propaganda organs geared up, the false stereotype would be “confirmed” and the “moral” cause established. Ironically, after they achieved victory (as they did in the Civil War), the looming crash would still occur. The ‘Sedition War’ of the 21st century would even hasten it.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    But why secession? States have let their 10th amendment privileges be trampled on for years. Instead of seceding, perhaps “civil disobedience” should be the first place to start. Bar federal departments–like the FBI or EPA or DOJ–from interfering with state sovereignty. If the feds push back, then perhaps secession is our only recourse. But we have a long way to go.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Why secession? Freedom is a right, and not a privilege. That’s why.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) has an op-ed in McPaper saying we should give serious Federalism a try before we resort to secession:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/18/texas-secession-obama-canada/1712241/

    The problem is that without the credible threat of secession, real federalism cannot be attained.

    • Svigor

      I think the time for strict Constitutionalism has passed. In fact, I think secession is the only way to achieve Constitutionalism at this point.

      • David Ashton

        Russian geopoliticians some time ago predicted a break up of the USA. Its fragmentation and the refusal of whites to co-operate with one another would make this part of the world vulnerable to a powerful and homogeneous external power, most likely an overpopulated and militarized China. Would anyone writing here welcome such an outcome apart from John Engelman in his dotage?

        • Gracchus123

          But really, how homogeneous is China? Additionally, China is now experiencing some economic issues of its own. Not sure how much of this aggrandizing of China is ala Potemkin and how much is real.

          Nevertheless, there are other options for America than “hard breaks”. States can exercise the 9th and 10th amendments vigorously. Done properly, there could develop clear and stark differences amongst the various States. Whites could then find that they in fact do have places to “run to.”

          • David Ashton

            Good, sensible idea. Whites must still co-operate, and maintain economic and military security. Brigham Young and Randy Weaver are not enough.

          • Gracchus123

            Agree completely. That’s why I always advocate building a philosophical base, then a political base for future activity. Organization on a grand scale is paramount.

          • David Ashton

            Well said, again.
            The final political platform itself must not be too complex, must stress the absolute essentials, and be repeated in simple easily grasped words and images for mass consumption.

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        It’s easy to read between the lines in both the Constitution itself and in very early Federal laws past in accordance with it to see that the Founding Fathers were the functional equivalent of white nationalists. Just because they didn’t come right out and say it as plainly as you or I might doesn’t mean they didn’t mean it, or that it wasn’t supposed to be self-evident. If you leave your small children with a teenage babysitter, must you tell the babysitter not to let the kids stick metal forks into electric sockets, or do you expect a 16-year old already to know that?

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    As to the question of secession, in Ken Burns’ documentary The Civil War, Shelby Foote, author of the three-volume The Civil War: A Narrative, observes:

    “Southerners would have told you they were fighting for self-government. They believed the gathering of power in Washington was against them. When they entered into that federation [the United States of America], they certainly would never have entered into it if they hadn’t believed it would be possible to get out. And when the time came that they wanted to get out, they thought they had every right.”

    The loose confederation of sovereign states that WAS the United States of America until 1860 was what the framers wanted. It was what their 1787 Constitution was intended to preserve. They did not want the unconstitutional highly centralized, consolidated state that Lincoln’s war created.

    These inconvenient realities are probably why Lincoln had to shut down dozens of newspapers in the North and imprison thousands of dissenters. He even had one opposing northern congressman arrested and deported. He also suspended habeas corpus for the duration of the war. The North was under martial law with the military given broad discretion to arrest for anything they deem disloyal. 13,000 political prisoners were held in military prisons, effectively chilling debate in the North.

    • john estle

      Excellent observations, sources. Why discuss secession without a clarification and understanding, of how our Founders would be horrified by the contemporary spectre
      of whole-hog democracy as distinct from the hiearchial countermeasures of representative democracy ((electoral college, state legislatures electing US Senators,
      male (family unit ) suffrage, etc )) The problem most basically is whole-hog democracy.
      The hierarchial constraints were designed to protect democracy from itself.

    • [email protected]

      Well said Sir, That would’ve been a fine kettle of fish having a jury set Davis free.
      Actually, the worst mistake the Radical Republicans made was not getting rid of that 10th Amendment when they had the power to do so. It’s still there for anyone with an ounce of common sense to see and read.

  • C_C_Conrad

    Speaking about Secession & civil war, I would like to pass this youtube link to you all. It’s a wonderful movie and some of the points made in the movie are apropos today.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bu8W-c_li4&feature=related
    ………….
    Jack’s War

  • GrandpaT

    It really doesn’t matter if secession is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if secessionists are called super patriots or traitors. Support for secession is determined by perceptions. Secession may happen sooner, later, or not at all. But no, the issue wasn’t settled in 1865 and it requires no permission from “authorities.”

    • Liberalsuck

      Countries and nations always break apart, regardless if it was legal or constitutional. When you don’t have the money, will or muscle to enforce your laws anymore, what good is it to argue if something is legal or constitutional? Hell, our own government for years now has been violating our constitution.

      • JohnEngelman

        The U.S. Constitution is not the absolute truth. It is one way to organize a democratic government. It is not the way most countries have adopted as democracy has spread throughout the world.

        It is vaguely worded. Otherwise Supreme Court decisions would usually be unanimous. Those who claim to stand in front of the Constitution defending it are really hiding behind it, hoping no one will see how paltry their arguments are.

        The Constitution is the last refuge of those who realize that their arguments are otherwise untenable, and that most Americans disagree with them.

        • Indiana Guy

          tell us what arguments are “untenable”

          • JohnEngelman

            Corporations are people who should be able to make unlimited political contributions.

          • Gracchus123

            Have you read the majority and minority opinions in that SCOTUS case? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn’t be just mouthing the socialist talking points.

          • Indiana Guy

            is that all you’ve got?

        • David Ashton

          Try the Communist Manifesto instead maybe?

          • JohnEngelman

            A political thinker should be read for insight rather than doctrine. Karl Marx had valid insights, and made critical mistakes. He did not claim to be infallible. When he learned that others made that claim on his behalf he wrote, “I thank God that I am not a Marxist.”

          • David Ashton

            Cultural Marxists do not call themselves Cultural Marxists either.

          • JohnEngelman

            That is because “Cultural Marxists” only exist in the imaginations of those who want to demonize popular social changes they dislike.

            The Marxists I have known have been proud to identify themselves as Marxists.

          • David Ashton

            First of all, what are precisely these “insights” you have acquired from this 19th century authority? Despite your well-known verbal reticence, could you spell them out for us to examine? What, for example, is your evaluation of his “insights” into Jews and Judaism, which you “love”? So far your quotations have been proposals Marx advocated which are nearer doctrines than insights. He did of course describe himself as a philosopher determined to “change the world” rather than simply “interpret” it, and was a political organizer of sorts.
            Secondly, either you have not read the references I and others have given you about or by “Cultural Marxists”, or missed their significance completely. It is so much a matter of “demonizing” people whose politics are derived from Marxian theories about e.g. the cultural superstructure but recognizing their own self-admitted sources. Some of these people do indeed regard and or call themselves Marxists. It is then a matter of disagreeing with both their analyses regarding “race, gender & class”, their subversive tactics and their undesirable “social changes”. It is not a matter of false labeling or bigoted dislike, but correct description and rational disapproval.

          • JohnEngelman

            Karl Marx correctly noted that the natural tendency of capitalism was to concentrate wealth at the top, even as the median income declined. He also noted that unregulated capitalism is destined to go through increasingly destructive economic downturns. When he wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1847 he predicted the Great Depression.

            The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes, which were adopted by the Roosevelt administration, mitigated these tendencies. Since those policies have been scaled back by Republicans beginning with the Reagan administration the tendencies Marx noted have become apparent again.

            The Reagan recession of 1982 was the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. Although unemployment has not climbed to the heights it did in 1982, the Great Recession has lasted longer. Most Americans have lost ground economically since Bill Clinton left office, but the rich are richer than ever before.

          • Gracchus123

            Austrian economists would disagree with your interpretation of the economic cycles of the last century. Do not despair though, I think Marx would agree with your interpretation.

          • David Ashton

            If you refer to the 1929 crash, you must refer us to the exact passage(s) where Marx predicted the time, location and character of this event decades after he arrived in Highgate Cemetery. It is not clear whether he expected crises to occur as result of rising wages reducing profit or as a result of increasing immiseration of the workers.
            My other questions? After all, you told us you were a very skilled debater.

          • JohnEngelman

            Read my comment again. I already explained. Obviously Marx did not predict anything precisely. What he did predict is what did happen until the reforms of John Maynard Keynes, and what is again happening as those reforms are being weakened by Republican de regulation.

          • Gracchus123

            As has been explained to you, the term “cultural marxism” is a “term of art” used to describe political/social activism of a certain type. Except for you, most people who discuss these things understand the use of that phrase.

          • JohnEngelman

            According to Gallup from 1958 to 2011 approval for interracial marriage climbed from 4 percent to 86 percent.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

            That did not happen because of a conspiracy by so called “Cultural Marxists.” It happened because most Americans did not see any harm coming from interracial marriage, and decided that is was a matter of personal choice and freedom.

          • Gracchus123

            Nobody is saying cultural marxists are conspirators. I have tried to explain the term and its usage. You are quite apparently incapable of understanding. Alternatively, you are purposely being obtuse.

          • JohnEngelman

            I understand your argument and reject it. My argument is that “Cultural Marxism” is like “racism.” It is a derogatory term that does nothing but add emotion to a discussion that should be dispassionate.

          • Gracchus123

            Most people I talk with do NOT use the term cultural marxism as a pejorative term. It is used to communicate effectively.

          • JohnEngelman

            Effective communication is accurate communication. The accurate term is “social liberal.” Compared with the white population in 1959 the vast majority of whites in the United States are social liberals. For most of us equal rights for blacks is a settled issue, and interracial marriage is not an issue at all.

          • David Ashton

            Equality of opportunity is one thing; equality of outcome is another. Majorities are not always right. Social liberalism is only a tangential aspect of what is called Cultural Marxism, New Left, Western Marxism or Critical Theory. Gracchus123 is being too gentle with you.

          • Gracchus123

            You prefer “social liberal” since you think “cultural marxism” is a pejorative term. Like so many on the Left, I reject your attempt to tell me how to use the language. I will continue to use the term cultural marxist when describing those who hold opinions like yours. People I communicate with on a daily basis will fully understand what I am talking about, and therefore I will have communicated “accurately”. Now you will try to deny that you are a “cultural marxist”.

          • JohnEngelman

            I say after Karl Marx, “I thank God that I am not a Marxist.”

            Marx said that loyalties of class are stronger than loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity. Among working people, the opposite is more nearly the truth.

            Marx predicted the Great Depression, and explain the Great Recession. His writings cannot explain the First World War, the rise of Fascism and Nazism after that war, the popularity of the Klu Klux Klan in the South until the FBI crushed it, and the fact that most lower income whites in the United States vote Republican.

          • David Ashton

            “Cultural Marxism” is a term that refers to Western Marxists, Critical Theorists and New Left intellectuals who derive from Marx and other Marxists the idea of deconstructing society by converting its cultural superstructure. Social liberalism (e.g. the hedonism of “sex, drugs and rock&roll”) is a preliminary or tangential aspect of this process which aims, ostensibly, at a socialist egalitarianism, as are some aspects of “Black Power” which relate more to an “Afroracism” than a derivative of Marxist-Leninist anti-colonialism. The mentors and practitioners of CM have been named in previous detailed posts. Some of these people infest western academia, notably in social studies departments. David Horowitz has listed a number of them in the USA, and since he “loves Jews and Israel” at least as much as you do, perhaps could bear to live and learn from what he has published on these matters.

        • Gracchus123

          “The U.S. Constitution is not the absolute truth.”

          It was never intended to be the absolute truth; it is intended to be the legal basis for the formation of a republic.

  • Pelagian

    It just dawned on me: secession has more of a chance of success than does the demographically-eclipsed GOP. It knocks the leftists off their game. They now have to come up with a whole new set of intellectual excuses in order to dominate us. And that will take some time. Before they come up with the excuses, secession will already be rolling and too hard to stop.

    I say, onward and upward secession.

    And the flashpoint for secession is not going to be race (I’m sorry). It’s going to be homosexuality. Once the Supreme Court imposes gay marriage on all 50 states, and everything that goes with it, including “equal accommodations”, meaning I have to cater a gay wedding, rent my bed and breakfast out to two guys that brought a vat of lube with them, I have to hire a gay organist for my church, etc. etc. … we are going to see Lester Maddox/ Strom Thurmond/George Wallace-type rebellions in the South that will be very akin to the States Rights Crypto-Secessionist Movements of the 40s and 50s.

    • IstvanIN

      Yeah, because white gays destroyed Detroit, Philadelphia, Camden, rape and pillage, have flash mobs, have IQs of 85, cause all sorts of mayhem and what not.

      I don’t know who is worse, the “it’s the gays” who are our problem, or the “it’s the Asians who will save us” crowd. You do realize that the homosexuals of any given race are produced by the heterosexuals of that same race.

    • heef

      It won’t be over gays.

  • Rob

    As a free White man I want to live in a WHITE country, the way America USED to be. Jewish people have Israel and my taxpayer dollars support that effort. Every people should have their own land for their own KIND. Whites are starting to AWAKEN. They should be free to choose how they wish to live. So let secession go forth or it will be, regrettably, CIVIL WAR II.

    “The principle, on which the war was
    waged by the North, was that men may rightfully be
    compelled to submit to, and support, a government
    that they do not want; and that resistance, on their
    part, makes them traitors and criminals.”

    Lysander Spooner

    • JohnEngelman

      What are you going to do with all those non whites? The states with the highest percentage of white reactionaries also have the highest percentage of non whites.

      • Liberalsuck

        What are all those mexicans and blacks going to do with millions of well armed, angry pissed off white people?

        • Indiana Guy

          And what are they going to do when they no longer receive an EBT card?When they no longer receive an “obamma sail foam”? I’ll tell you, they will move licketty split to where the welfare benefits are- and that will be in the failed federal state.

      • Indiana Guy

        They will go where the ebt cards are. There was a mass migration of blacks to the northern White cities in the early 20th century. Whole neighborhoods in New Orleans LA were relocated to Houston where they would continue to receive their welfare benefits. Millions of Germans were forcibly expelled from Silesia. Sudetenland, Pomerania and Prussia after WWII, Millions of Jews moved to Israel. When India received it’s independence there was a exchange of millions of people to the borders of the new countries of India and Pakistan. Millions of illegal aliens have relocated to this country from mexico. We will declare the New America, and you will be left behind in a third world country.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        “What are we going to do with all those non whites?”

        We’re going to kill them.

  • Michael Alan Prock

    Secession is only constitutional if it is peaceful, it is only peaceful if both sides want it. The coalition of anti-White resentment, including a lot of Whites enthralled by the media and “you know who,” do not want it: they want power — they have it and they intend to keep it.
    Whites need to realize that we are in a fight for our lives, not just political hegemony or self-determination. When enough realize this, then some motivation can be garnered for something meaningful.
    Talk of secession might be a useful tool along this path, but only to a point.

    • IstvanIN

      It won’t be peaceful, unfortunately. That is why the feds have been moving Somalis and Burmese and assorted other alien races into majority white states, to make sure we have no place to retreat to and to make sure there is a fifth column in every corner. Add to that that easily 1/3 of whites would be against us and it will not be pretty.

      • EngineerPoet

        The 13 colonies had about 1/3 fraction of Tories.  They either shrugged and accepted the passing of the torch, or left.

        • Indiana Guy

          The were run out of town under the threat of death in manny cases.

      • Libearlsuck

        I’m not directing this at you guys, but why do so many whites today only talk about doing things if it is “easy”? Don’t do such and such job because it’s “not fun” or “follow your heart” or “if it is too hard, don’t waste your time.” We’ve grown to be a bunch of soft, spoiled whimps I hate to say. Our ancestors were tough. They accomplished a lot with a very little and with every obstacle in their way and with every odd stacked against them. They didn’t ask for permission when they fought off enemies or defied a tyrannical government. They didn’t simply complain about their problems. They didn’t ask for handouts. They didn’t need a permission slip to kill a burglar in their own home. They weren’t concerned, “Oh, if I say/do this, I might lose my job.”

        • Svigor

          This is what happens to a healthy, wealthy, safe population.

    • Indiana Guy

      Secession will be peaceful, the reaction to it, wont be.

  • BAW

    What is also interesting to contemplate is how other countries would react to secession. Would China call in our debt, as there would be a chance that they would not be paid back? Would Iran see this as a chance to wreak even more havoc in the Middle East? Would those EU countries planning on leaving be emboldened to do so? Also, it’s interesting to contemplate how those states that seceded would handle relations with other countries…thoughts?

    • IstvanIN

      There would be world wide mayhem. Our troops stationed in over 900 bases overseas would be stranded in hostile territory. Those bases have some of our best white fighting men. It would give foreign countries a chance to land on American shores and take chunks of North America, depending on who got hold of the nuclear weapons and if there was a will to use them.

    • Liberalsuck

      How would the areas that seceded deal with violent, hateful blacks and mexicans who want whites dead, but hordes of invading Chinese and muslims into our lands? Would the seceded areas have the manpower, resources and will to fight off big, powerful enemies? Think the movie 300 but in modern times with drones, missles, automatic weapons, etc. Combine that with the fact so many white men are getting killed overseas and the ones here are so brainwashed and neutered by feminism and political correctness. if the majority of white men were like Rambo or Dirty Harry, then we would have a chance. It’s going to take a lot of work and hell whites will go through. I’m just being honest. It won’t be a cakewalk.

  • Alexander

    Just wanted to clear up something an idiotic poster on that site said:

    “The War of 1861 had little to do with secession. The war started when
    The Confederate States of America attacked the United States of America.
    It was a war between two sovereign nations. Without the attack on Ft
    Sumter, Lincoln could never had made to case to go to war with the
    South.”

    Ft. Sumter was in South Carolina – in someone else’s country. Lincoln purposely refused to move it in an attempt to provoke an incident. The Confederacy no more attacked the empire than there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Another lie generated by self-righteous American libs.

    • IstvanIN

      The North started the war. The South should have held a blockade, provided only food and water to Fort Sumter, and negotiated the withdraw of Union Troops. Firing was a mistake. South Carolina jumped the gun on that. Once someone dies it gives the other side a reason for revenge, which the North took.

      • Svigor

        Right; after the south killed that mule, it was “game on.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/brady.dillon.7 Brady Dillon

    If Lincoln could see what was going to happen to his country over the next 150 years, I suspect even he would be asking whether keeping the Union together was worth it.

    • Luca

      If Lincoln were here today the first thing he would say would be: “I told you we should have shipped the freed slaves to the caribbean or Africa. I told you the two races were not equal and could not live together.”

      • saxonsun

        True. And he was in the process of doing just that when Booth shot him exactly 5 days after the war ended. Blame all this mess on Booth.

        • Gracchus123

          Booth was an agent of others.

        • Svigor

          Nonsense. If someone had done what Booth did before Lincoln had destroyed the republic, southerners might’ve been able to prevent the mess in the first place.

          If there’s a hell, Lincoln is burning in it.

      • Svigor

        Lincoln talked out of both sides of his mouth throughout his career. There is no evidence he believed his repatriation rhetoric; it was something he said to one audience, then contradicted elsewhere.

        The man had no beliefs that were beyond corruption as far as I can tell.

  • http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/ Fr. John+

    I am reading Colin Woodard’s “American Nations.” It has blown EVERYTHING I ever thought about America, out of the Water. Hunter Wallace, over at Occidental Dissent, has been writing about this for over two years, and clearly PREDICTED THE OBAMA win, and what it would mean. His most recent posts show that Dixie already IS a ‘separate country’ with a defined ethnos, religion, culture, traditions, and geography. Obama’s mandate for Term II has just flown out the window. Reading this book, every single state, from Vermont to Georgia, has, at one time or another, entertained secession. The reason they have, is because THEY CAN. Lincoln was a damned Traitor and a godless individual. I am a Yankee, No more.

    • Pelagian

      >>. His most recent posts show that Dixie already IS a ‘separate country’ with a defined ethnos, religion, culture, traditions, and geography.

      I dont know … TV and mass media has made the South pretty much like the North. Esp. the cosmopolitan cities of Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. And what do you do about the fact that the states most interested in seceeding have big black populations, much bigger than, say, New England. And do you give people a grace period to move from North to South or South to North? And what about military bases? Most southerners are Fox News pro-military types. They’re not going to go along with America’s military might being cut in half. The more I think about it … it’s nevcer going to work. The circumstances are way different from the 1850s..

  • http://twitter.com/wattyler23 wattyler23

    Have those States who want go it alone thought about the currency they will use. Would they still use the Green back, not a smart move, Him in the White house would starve you out. Have those go it alone States got their own Banks that they have been filling with Gold and silver and other precious metals to back their own currency, if not you had better start doing so now because Folk would run for the Border if they were to be paid out in Monopoly money

  • jay11

    For those with seccessionist fantasies, have you looked around at pretty much any city in almost every state? Nothing but a sea of black, latino and asian faces with a few swarthy white ethnic mafioso types thrown in for good measure. The dream of a racially dominant white state or group of states is pretty much over for at least 30 or so states. The rest are falling over the ‘racial cliff’ even as we sit here and fantasize like we’re playing chess. Our problem is the white pieces are few and are getting fewer each day as the black pieces manoever us into a final check-mate.
    The fact that half the white people in America are active traitors to the country of their forefathers, or at best clueless (hipsters, meth addicts, sports fans of all-black teams, etc) does not help matters. I do not know what the answer is, but I do know that pretty much any state that tries to go it alone (in other words, whites wanting to take their marbles and go home) will be ripe for an internal rebellion of the majority or almost majority blacks and latinos and asians who are increasing in numbers faster than you can count!
    Imagine this, you Texas secession ‘dreamers’. The next day after seccession, the majority latino population votes spanish as the official language and millions more ‘immigrants’ from the south rejoice and poor into another outpost of latin america.

    • Liberalsuck

      Texas will eventually secede to Mexico, even if the whites there get enough will to secede from the US. I predict the South and Southwest will be taking over by Latinos and they will be in a race war with blacks for power there. It’s already happening. I suspect whites will flee those states as will the Asians and will probably move further up north. Maybe disgruntled military will move to seceded white states to help them fight. You don’t know what might happen in the future. Nobody knows for sure. A lot has changed in this country in the past 30 or 40 years, so imagine the next 30 or 40 years what will be.

    • saxonsun

      And here in NYC, tons of Indians.

      • Gracchus123

        Sheet or feather?

    • Gracchus123

      Cities would be fairly easy to isolate looking at the issue from a purely tactical perspective.

      • David Ashton

        Read Chairman Mao.

  • JohnEngelman

    For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone.

    -Walter Williams, WND, November 27, 2012

    What about those who oppose legal abortion, inter racial marriage, gay marriage, and the use of marijuana? They are on your side of the political spectrum.

    • Indiana Guy

      so you favor outlawing big sodas but legalizing pot. Gay marriage is not about control, it is about a definition of an institution. The deviants do not define the norm, they never have and they never will, giving them that ability is not freedom for them, it is oppression of the majority.

      • JohnEngelman

        when did I say I was in favor of outlawing big sodas? I do think junk food should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco.

        • David Ashton

          And addictive brain poisons like pot and crack?

          • JohnEngelman

            Everything I have read about marijuana tells me that it is less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana may even have medicinal benefits, but I think they are exaggerated.

          • David Ashton

            You need to catch up on recent research, especially on the psychosis aspect. There is no need to smoke reefers to imbibe the medicinal element which can be isolated for MS relief.

          • Indiana Guy

            look what it has done to your mind …it is very dangerous

      • JohnEngelman

        When did I say I was in favor of outlawing big sodas?

        How are heterosexuals oppressed by gay marriage?

        • Indiana Guy

          you claim that conservatives want government to regulate behavior, yet it is the liberals that are regulating the daily minutia of people’s behaviors. You can’t have it both ways. If you are a liberal, then own it, and own the fact that liberals are all about controlling people’s behaviors. Society is oppressed when a minority of deviants, redefines what normal is. That is how they are oppressed. If thieves were allowed to redefine what “work” was, so that it included robbery, then that would be oppression as well.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            That’s because to the left, “freedom” means aborticide and gay “marriage.” That’s all.

            It is possible to get a legal aborticide in the state of Mississippi. I could stand on a corner in the Upper West Side of New York City with an empty and unloaded machine gun strapped to my back, a 32-ounce sugary soda on one hand, a tobacco cigarette in my mouth, and holding a sign that reads, “The Holocaust didn’t happen, But it should have.”

            Taken literally, both are acts of free people acting out their freedom. But you know precisely what would happen in both scenarios. The person getting that “procedure” in Mississippi is practically protected by Federal troops, while I’m going to Rikers Island.

          • Puggg

            If I tried that, I would be holding a sign I don’t believe, and a drink I won’t consume, with a drug in my mouth I won’t smoke, with an unloaded gun on my back that can’t possibly do any long range damage, in front of people known for their tolerance and sense of sarcasm and passion for civil liberties.

            What could possibly go wrong?

    • Svigor

      Wrong. The people who want to legalize pot lean secessionist, as do the people who want to end foreign adventurism, the people who prefer Freedom to false security, the people who prefer the right to decide for themselves what laws will govern reproductive decisions. Same goes for “homosexual marriage” (an oxymoron), etc.

      That’s one of the nice things about opposition to an overbearing central power – one finds allies at every turn who need only agree that they don’t like the status quo and would like to decide for themselves.

      • JohnEngelman

        You are thinking of libertarians rather than Republicans. Libertarians are liberal on social issues, but they are atypical of most on the right.

        Most on the right are authoritarians, rather than libertarians. That is true of most who post comments on this website. They dislike a liberal government that passes gun control laws and uses their tax money to help poor blacks.

        Nevertheless, they would welcome a strong government that enforced a return to white male supremacy. That would take a lot of governmental coercion because popular values and behavior have moved in a liberal direction since the 1950s.

        • Gracchus123

          ” They dislike a liberal government that passes gun control laws and uses their tax money to help poor blacks.”

          Both of your examples are of an over-reaching government which has decided that it can regulate/manage my property better than I can.

  • JohnEngelman

    If the standard of living for most Americans continues to decline I think the breakup of the United States into two or more countries is a real possibility. It will be like the fall of the Soviet Union, only violent. After the fall of the Soviet Union the standard of living for perhaps 80 percent of Russians declined. Currently Russia has the highest murder rate of any white majority country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    The fall of the Soviet Union was seen in the United States as the failure of socialism. I predict that the fall of the United States will be seen internationally as the failure of capitalism.

    • Indiana Guy

      once again, you are wrong. America is now a redistributionist state. IT is not a capitalist state. It’s failure will be because of the government and crony capitalism-which is nothing more than socialism lite, not capitalism.

      • JohnEngelman

        Crony capitalism is an authentic form of capitalism. There is nothing new about it. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century it was common for millionaires to buy state legislatures.

        Immediately after the election of Abraham Lincoln Southerners agreed with you. They thought it would be easy to defeat the North. They were mistaken.

  • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

    This could work because we now have the model of the Civil Rights movement, the techniques of Gandhi and others, and resolutions by the United Nations.

    We are clearly a divided nation unhappy with each other. Both sides, left and right, blame the other for their inability to live happy lives under a government they both see as oppressive and tyrannical. Each side would be happier with the government they imagine. The KEY is that we need to convince the left that if we seceded, they could have the government of their dreams. Free abortions, free healthcare, equal pay to women, gay rights, and on and on. If the left really believes what they say, we need to make them see this is in THEIR best interest.

    This time, we must not begin the struggle with violence and aggression. Start with words, reason, and logic. The pen is mighty but we must be cautious of the sword. If we began in a peaceful manner, any violent reaction from the central government would been seen as a slaughter of innocent people.

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to
    dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and
    to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
    to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent
    respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
    causes which impel them to the separation.

  • ImTellinYa

    Secession won’t solve anything. It’s just another way of running away from the main problem which is the invasion of third-world savages into our White country. There’s a lot of talk about Texas seceding. So what? Texas is about half Mexican. If it secedes from the U.S. successfully what happens then? Either Whites in Texas continue their cowardly surrender to invading nonWhites or there is civil war in the new Republic of Texas. That is the stark choice. Expel the invaders or continue to support them while they attack us.

    The social pathology known as liberalism, progressivism, leftism, etc. has permeated White culture. THAT is what must be eradicated and our countries must be reclaimed from the Leftists and their nonWhite foot soldiers.

    Again, what if the South secedes from the U.S.? The problem still remains that the South is full of Blacks and Hispanics who hate and despise Whites in spite of the fact that Whites built the country they all want to live in. Do Whites continue to support and pander to these savages in the new, smaller polity? Or do Whites fight back and reclaim their land?

    Either way with an intact U.S. or smaller fragments Whites are still confronted with the same problem; millions of hostile third-world savages whose numbers are growing every day because we are too cowardly to stop them. Secession changes nothing.

    So what SHOULD we do? It’s hard to say exactly, but looking at what we shouldn’t do sometimes helps to define what needs to be done. About half of White people are still committed to the side of affirmative-action parasites like Obama, which means they are either cowards or traitors.

    White people need leaders who will articulate the problem in a loud, blunt, public manner. With leaders and a public declaration of the problem, I think the solution would form of itself.

    But at the moment we are ruled by a lively, vibrant, diverse coalition of White cowards and nonWhite savages. Splitting into mutually hostile, smaller polities will do nothing at all to help that.

    • JohnEngelman

      Here are several things you can do. Concentrate on political issues where you can win. These include ending affirmative action, ending forced school busing, and ending Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

      Project and defend the viewpoint that racial differences in intelligence and crime are largely genetic, and intractable. Advocate a harsher criminal justice system. Push for more restrictions on immigration.

      Secession is a wrong detour. It either won’t happen, or it will create more problems than it solves.

      Those who dream of secession remind me of new left radicals during the late 1960s and early 1970s who dreamed of revolution. Back then a leftist revolution was not possible, but thinking and talking about it was counter productive.

      • ImTellinYa

        Absolutely. What happened to the “Like” button? I would have “liked” to have “Liked” your response. Anyhoo, this talk of secession reminds me of an article here a couple of weeks ago that maintained that “Whitopias” were the way to go. That was another avoidance tactic where White would leave their homes and flock to a place where they would make a new super majority. What happens then? The nonWhites gain territory AND begin to illegally enter the new Whitopias. So we either surrender to THAT invasion of third-world savages or we fight back and keep the nonWhites out by force.

        If we’re going to have to use force to deny entry to nonWhites and deport them, then we might as well use force where we are. And we will have to use force. All this talk about self-deportation and “enforcement” of current law is just so much cowardly wishful thinking. That kind of talk is mainly bandied about by White traitors and cowards who are desperate NOT to do anything to stop the third-world savage invasion, but are in fact doing all they can to facilitate it. We have one of those traitors in that common criminal currently defiling the White House and we would have had one of those cowards if Mitt Romney had actually run for president and won. Romney was forbidden to make an effective run for president. So he didn’t.

        In any case the current government, Democrat and GOP, is determined, for their own irrational, mentally-ill reasons, to replace Whites with nonWhites. They are insane. That makes our current government not only useless and destructive, but it actually makes their authority invalid. We certainly can no longer look to the government to do anything at all that is rational and constructive. In the worst economic depression we’ve ever had, out government is not only doing everything it can to make that depression worse, it is telling us that we are in a “recovery.” This is evidence of a deep, deep mental pathology whether they believe their lies or not.

        And now I am reading more and more about Leftist “intellectuals (read functional idiots and would be tyrants)” calling for the outlawing of non-Leftist speech. They’ve had their fascist, politically-correct speech code programs in place at universities, then the workplace and now they want to enshrine this brutal tyranny into law. At some point we are going to have to stop obeying these evil people. We will have to stop obeying them completely and refuse to be arrested or sanctioned for it. I dread it, but that’s all we can do.

        • JohnEngelman

          The like button is the arrow point at the lower left of a comment that points upward.

  • MissBonnie123

    I don’t understand how these petitions are a true form of secession. It is not the state governments that desire secession but groups of people. Nevertheless, it would never work because of the sheer amount of nonwhites in most states.

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again: We need to work on establishing a White homeland for our people. Moderates and conservatives would be welcome. Anti-White Whites would not be welcome. I’ve spent some time analyzing the situation in our country and I believe this is the only way we have a chance of being able to live in peace while creating the type of political and economic system we believe is best and being able to celebrate OUR holidays, culture, heroes, etc. without hearing the anti-Whites and nonwhites demeaning them.

    There, of course, must be a written plan and we must be relentless in pursuing this objective. The leaders must be articulate and put a positive face on this movement. They must also have massive courage to deal with the onslaught of abuse they will take.

    I believe that since White people established 50 states once before, we can pull up our creativity, courage, and intelligence and create this homeland. Times have changed and we now have to be pioneers like many of our ancestors were.

  • Michael_C_Scott

    I am altogether sick of this John Engels creep.

  • David Ashton

    Secession possibly. Exclusive ethno-states improbably. Who, where, how and when?

  • pzebra

    This article is so correct. I have despised lincoln for years, since I found out that he suspended our Constitution, & implemented extremely harsh “orders” on different states-akin to the soviet union; “Trying” civilians in military courts, to deny them the Right to a jury trial, & literally becoming a dictator. No wonder he was plauged with nightmares & ghosts-his guilt was eating him alive!!! The bastard!

  • spd1275

    Lincoln was a typical politician. Prior to and during the first part of the war he wanted Blcks to be freed, and sent back to Frida. He did NOT want them to live with whites, vote, or hold office. He expressed his opinion that they were mentally AND emotionally inferior. When he freed them, he did not free them in the north, only in the succeeded states, and he only did it to keep Britain from helping the South. Lincoln was a GREAT politician.

  • IstvanIN

    No, it is the fixation on gays being the problem that is strange. Gay marriage is a side show, a distraction, something that has been settled in quite a few states. If you could get every homosexual to disappear tomorrow, you might personally be happy, but it would not change our situation one iota. Gays haven’t destroyed our major cities, or given us any of our immigration woes, nor are a major source of crime. You are certainly free to hate gays, but such hatred is nonproductive.

    Hmm, you deleted your post that this post is in response to.

  • Pelagian

    Nope … moderators did. Interesting. It was tame as can be. Pro-gay bias here?

  • Liberalsuck

    As much as I am not in favor of homosexuality, it’s a side issue and is a waste of time for conservatives to even bring up. That’s why the GOP lost the election. Romney didn’t give plans on how he would cut government size or how he would bring back jobs nor did he have an aggressive campaign dealing with Obama. He was too nice and too civilized about it, I hate to say. The liberals are not nice or civilized and they are winning. They know conservatives aren’t easily prone to get physical or nasty with the other side.

  • IstvanIN

    I didn’t delete your post. I don’t have that power. It is bizarre to blame gays for a situation they didn’t cause and to think that if only they disappeared the problem would go away. Same thing with the Asiaphiles. They won’t save us. The problem is blacks, uncontrolled immigration and the folks who control the media.

  • Pelagian

    I wasnt saying you deleted it. I was just asking for your honest opinion since you are one of the few ones that got to read it before it was deleted.

  • David Ashton

    Your last sentence sums up the main issues. But not that the “Cultural Marxist” attack on western nationhood aims at “gender” as well as “race”. The idea of “gay marriage” is not really to extend and secure the concept of matrimony but to extend the social definition of matrimony in a manner that detaches sex even more from the reproduction and nurture of (especially white) children. Hedonism is a softening up process for hard revolution.