Secession: an academic discussion

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,925
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Thanks for posting BigRed. Walter Williams was a man of great intellect and he will be missed.


    I agree....he already is. He was a man whose Creator endowed him with a brilliant mind. I think much the same of Thomas Sowell.

    I often wonder who will come close to filling the shoes of men like these. They are an increasingly rare breed.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    I'm not a historian, but my perspective is why not let them seceed? We would have been spared a horrible war (I lost an ancestor in a Confederate prison camp). Slavery would have died on its own and it would be the CSA"s problem, not ours.

    BTW, as I understand it, the beginning of the war was when the Confederates shelled Ft. Sumter. They refused to get involved in any peaceful settlement, yet they call it the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm confused. I also love vacationing in the South and fully realize they are happy to take my money and happy to see my tail lights when I leave. I love them anyway.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,066
    77
    Southside Indy
    I also love vacationing in the South and fully realize they are happy to take my money and happy to see my tail lights when I leave. I love them anyway.
    This reminds me of an episode of "American Pickers" when they were down in Texas I think. The guy they were picking said, "Yankees are like hemorrhoids. If they come down and go back up, they're okay. If they come down and stay down, it's a problem." :):
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,925
    149
    1,000 yards out
    I'm not a historian, but my perspective is why not let them seceed? We would have been spared a horrible war (I lost an ancestor in a Confederate prison camp). Slavery would have died on its own and it would be the CSA"s problem, not ours.

    BTW, as I understand it, the beginning of the war was when the Confederates shelled Ft. Sumter. They refused to get involved in any peaceful settlement, yet they call it the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm confused. I also love vacationing in the South and fully realize they are happy to take my money and happy to see my tail lights when I leave. I love them anyway.

    Take some time to study the facts of the matter.... it is very interesting.

    The secessionists made several peaceful attempts.

    To say South Carolina was the "aggressor" is like saying a home owner defending against a thug entering his home is an aggressor..even after multiple robberies by the thug.

    Fun trivia question.... How many were killed in the shelling of Ft. Sumter?
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    Take some time to study the facts of the matter.... it is very interesting.

    The secessionists made several peaceful attempts.

    To say South Carolina was the "aggressor" is like saying a home owner defending against a thug entering his home is an aggressor..even after multiple robberies by the thug.

    Fun trivia question.... How many were killed in the shelling of Ft. Sumter?
    Thanks for the reply. There were zero deaths as a result of the attack on Ft. Sumter. As I said, I'm not a scholar, but I understand the abolitionists in the North were putting a lot of pressure on the South to end slavery.
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,925
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Thanks for the reply. There were zero deaths as a result of the attack on Ft. Sumter. As I said, I'm not a scholar, but I understand the abolitionists in the North were putting a lot of pressure on the South to end slavery.

    Only in the seceded States.

    It was, apparently, fine in Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky.
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    I have an interesting thought. With the size of the country landmass and the variety of political and religious beliefs why is it that everyone here thinks the country would only split into two.

    I for one could see it splitting in as many as 5-6 separate countries, the only limiting factor is how many charismatic and influential leaders pop up at the right time.

    for instance California and the western seaboard will surely stick together but do you see those people in Idaho and Montana accepting LA as their new capital? In this “war game” if you will the “man in the high castle” scenario becomes more probable in that the Rockies and potentially parts of the south like Louisiana/south Mississippi/ Florida panhandle are simply too remote and unruly to bend the knee to any new authority outside of their own region.

    during reconstruction the north lost more soldiers getting bushwhacked in the piney woods region(google Coyell Louisiana ) of Louisiana than they did taking the state during the war. Even today in some of these remote places the law simply doesn’t exist in the same way we think here in indiana.
     
    Last edited:

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,925
    149
    1,000 yards out
    I have an interesting thought. With the size of the country landmass and the variety of political and religious beliefs why is it that everyone here thinks the country would only split into two.

    I for one could see it splitting in as many as 5-6 separate countries, the only limiting factor is how many charismatic and influential leaders pop up at the right time.

    for instance California and the western seaboard will surely stick together but do you see those people in Idaho and Montana accepting LA as their new capital? In this “war game” if you will the “man in the high castle” scenario becomes more probable in that the Rockies and potentially parts of the south like Louisiana/south Mississippi/ Florida panhandle are simply too remote and unruly to bend the knee to any new authority outside of their own region.

    during reconstruction the north lost more soldiers getting bushwhacked in the piney woods region(google Coyell Louisiana ) of Louisiana than they did taking the state during the war. Even today in some of these remote places the law simply doesn’t exist in the same way we think here in indiana.

    Your thought of multiple federations is touched on in one of the essays here:

    Amazon product ASIN 1589809572
    The author contends that once a republic expands beyond its natural size, it is dysfunctional and no longer operates as a republic. Reorganizing in smaller groups restores the republic structure.

    (Note: The cover artwork is just a pic... not necessarily a suggestion of how reorganizations would form)
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    Your thought of multiple federations is touched on in one of the essays here:

    Amazon product ASIN 1589809572
    The author contends that once a republic expands beyond its natural size, it is dysfunctional and no longer operates as a republic. Reorganizing in smaller groups restores the republic structure.

    (Note: The cover artwork is just a pic... not necessarily a suggestion of how reorganizations would form)
    Ewww why do we have to get lumped in with Chicago?

    all jokes aside I agree with the premise and will add this to my reading list thank you.
     

    Mikey1911

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2014
    2,772
    113
    Newburgh
    That is considered in the book as well.... places like Chiraq becoming city states.

    I am guessing a good number of the good folks down state would be interested.

    If someone were then to cut the 345kV, 500kV, 765kV, and 500kVDC power lines going into some of those “city-states”, said “city-states” will quickly look like something out of “Escape from New York”.
     

    mechmc17

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Jul 21, 2020
    98
    8
    Zionsville
    This is only part of the story.

    As more value is created in the world (gold mined, dishwashers manufactured, cheeseburgers grilled, etc.), the total value of everything goes up. If the value of everything increases and the money supply stays fixed, we get deflation.

    That's a much worse problem than slight inflation.
    This is false. Deflation is a boogeyman the Fed uses to make us feel good about them controlling money creation. They can try to use the Depression to make this point, but that argument doesn’t take into account all the other harmful policies the government was pursuing, including the National Recovery Act which seems nuts when you look into it today. Economics was less advanced at the time.

    Our hard money system before the Fed was created in 1913 was slowly deflationary. A dollar in 1913 could buy more goods than in 1820 - meaning that a person could save coins and retire on savings that grew in value sitting in a mattress as the economy grew more productive, no stock-based retirement plans necessary.

    A healthy, growing economy is by nature deflationary. Think about the price and quality of TV sets. You can buy a 75” HDTV for under $1,000 these days, which would have cost 3-4 times as much during the last election cycle. Continuing improvements in technology and efficiency cause prices to go down, meaning deflation.

    Inflation results from increases in the money supply. The Fed, which by the way is privately owned by the largest banks and is not a part of the government, is allowed to create money. They don’t even have to print it anymore, they just add virtual dollars to accounts electronically. That money goes first to banks to pay the government’s obligations, such as to contractors and government employees. This ability to create money is central to the government’s ability to operate however they want, from multi trillion debt financed wars to Wall St bailouts. Money creation is inherently inflationary, hence they have to convince us that some inflation is good because the real problem would be deflation. Deflation lets the poor buy groceries with less of their money. Inflation does the opposite, with money creation granting more power to those close to government who receive the freshly created money.

    More stuff for less money is definitely not a problem.
     

    mechmc17

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Jul 21, 2020
    98
    8
    Zionsville
    It took huge effort from Europe, time, money and resources to get secession to happen last time. Not gonna happen again.
    China could finance it. And as our clear rival, wouldn’t it make sense for them to break up the only nation powerful enough to challenge them?
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    This is false. Deflation is a boogeyman the Fed uses to make us feel good about them controlling money creation. They can try to use the Depression to make this point, but that argument doesn’t take into account all the other harmful policies the government was pursuing, including the National Recovery Act which seems nuts when you look into it today. Economics was less advanced at the time.

    Our hard money system before the Fed was created in 1913 was slowly deflationary. A dollar in 1913 could buy more goods than in 1820 - meaning that a person could save coins and retire on savings that grew in value sitting in a mattress as the economy grew more productive, no stock-based retirement plans necessary.

    A healthy, growing economy is by nature deflationary. Think about the price and quality of TV sets. You can buy a 75” HDTV for under $1,000 these days, which would have cost 3-4 times as much during the last election cycle. Continuing improvements in technology and efficiency cause prices to go down, meaning deflation.

    Inflation results from increases in the money supply. The Fed, which by the way is privately owned by the largest banks and is not a part of the government, is allowed to create money. They don’t even have to print it anymore, they just add virtual dollars to accounts electronically. That money goes first to banks to pay the government’s obligations, such as to contractors and government employees. This ability to create money is central to the government’s ability to operate however they want, from multi trillion debt financed wars to Wall St bailouts. Money creation is inherently inflationary, hence they have to convince us that some inflation is good because the real problem would be deflation. Deflation lets the poor buy groceries with less of their money. Inflation does the opposite, with money creation granting more power to those close to government who receive the freshly created money.

    More stuff for less money is definitely not a problem.
    Any further interested in this scheme should look into the fed repurchase of assets. This is why the stock market is going up despite the economy flagging. In the summer everyone said we had no inflation, now they are admitting we have asset inflation caused by the fed. Money printer go brrrrr.
    Anyway this has done nothing but increase the wealth gap exponentially as those who didn’t really need any help got their stock portfolio on a moon shot while some wonder if they can pay their mortgage
     
    Top Bottom