After Civil War, What would the 2 Americas Look Like?

[Pete7469]

Nah, all the CHRISTOMAGAS would be put into reservations in Oklahoma.

By whom exactly? These fucking bed wetters?

 

[Pete7469]

The Civil War of the 1860's put the federal government in charge and the federal government has all the guns so there won't be a 2nd civil war. The notion of having to display a passport to get into New York State is intriguing however.

Or display one to GET OUT of there, which is what many people inside want to do.

 

[22lcidw]

There wouldn't be some agreed-upon new borders set up. We'd just more resemble the Middle East, where moving from state to state would require a full understanding of the intensity of the religious rule and dogma in that state.

Most of us can only hope there will be plenty of purple states, with the dynamic collaboration and innovation from Left, Right and Center that made America great. No doubt those will be the best and most stimulating places to live.

We need the best and that is not true anymore. As white people dominated even if they were not good, diversity is doing the same today as there are people in power who are given it for their backgrounds. We are declining because of it.

 

[Riff Raff]

The split second that Captain James allowed Edmund Ruffin to pull that first lanyard you entered into a state of Rebellion against lawful authority.

Wrong. Once South Carolina seceded it was no longer under the authority of the US oppressors. Property in Charleston Harbor them became Charleston's, not the Yankees.

Oh, and you said "you." I'm a Northener, born and raised and where I still remain. My state never allowed slavery and provided the most Yankee soldiers by state per capita in the war.

(I am a former decade-long resident of Charleston, however).

 

[Pete7469]

Actually, you will have nothing but what you can hold by yourself. There will be no United States government. No military. No money, nothing. What you have are nightmarish cities locked in open warfare.

Anything else is a mastubatory fantasy.

The small handful of democrook filth that actually have guns and know how to even fucking load them might just fend off the hordes of ghetto rats but for the most part the city dwellers are already dead. This isn't russia of 1917. We're no longer a society where farmers are lucky to have one rifle and a half a box of ammo they inherited. The red areas of the country are armed to the teeth and sitting on piles of ammo they've been hoarding since the 90's. These areas have the most combat vets, the most training, it's where everything that sustains democrook city dwelling pukes comes from and when the supplies of soy get cut off, they're going to starve to death.

Zincturd is just another pinko monkey flinging shit and can be ignored.


.

 

[Pete7469]

We need the best and that is not true anymore. As white people dominated even if they were not good, diversity is doing the same today as there are people in power who are given it for their backgrounds. We are declining because of it.

This is not really even a racial issue, as much as macturd wants to make it one.

 

[Pete7469]

Which of course would make them really like liberals.....
Talk about not thinking things through.

That jabbering retard can't think at all...

So therein lies the problem.

 

[cnm]

No. Not theoretical. We're doing this. It's not a question of if but when.

Fer shure. The South will riz agin...

 

[Faun]

Wrong. Once South Carolina seceded it was no longer under the authority of the US oppressors. Property in Charleston Harbor them became Charleston's, not the Yankees.

Oh, and you said "you." I'm a Northener, born and raised and where I still remain. My state never allowed slavery and provided the most Yankee soldiers by state per capita in the war.

(I am a former decade-long resident of Charleston, however).

False. It was U.S. property. South Carolina had no right to take it back.

 

[konradv]

Theoretical, for sure, but geographically what would a divided America look like? Slivers on the Northeastern seaboard on the left coast are a given, but what of isolated cities/shitholes that dot the vast expanses in between?

What of citizenship or exchange of populations? Would a perforated country be sustainable and could the rural and urban areas function independently?

It may seem alarmist, but there cannot be much doubt that with the persecution of the leader of a great deal of the country, this could come to pass.

The country would look the same on a map. Don’t know how some of the redder areas would look, after losing CW II.

 

[cnm]

Wrong. Once South Carolina seceded it was no longer under the authority of the US oppressors. Property in Charleston Harbor them became Charleston's, not the Yankees.

It's almost as though words mean nothing...

http://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

​

The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. ​

​

Depending upon the property in question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the state's approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land. South Carolina's legislature was so anxious to have Fort Sumter, that it provided for the first two and left out the third exception.​

​

It is important to note that then - and now - the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The States bent over backwards to make certain they got their share - and then some - of the Federal budget, including quickly removing impediments to the government acquiring title.​

​

And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government.​

 

[Riff Raff]

False. It was U.S. property. South Carolina had no right to take it back.

That became a dispute. Lincoln claimed that once a state joined the gang the people had to be murdered to prevent them from ever leaving. South Carolina, and I (a Yankee), maintain that the state had a right to vote to leave the union just as they voted to join the union.

Lincoln was also denying the right of states to decide for themselves the economic issue of using African labor, important to Carolina's economic health. I think the reasonable position was that state's, not Lincoln's.

 

[Pete7469]

Even though the bed wetters seem to really want a civil war, what they actually want is a collapse and for the Constitutional Republic to be dissolved like their beloved USSR was. They actually believe the military will come to protect them. LOL....

If you recall the results however, the left lost as a result. The tanks came out on the streets, and them turned on the authoritarians. If Russia had a 2A from the beginning, the mafia wouldn't have taken much of the country over and it wouldn't remain a 1st rate 3rd world shithole like western europe is becoming.

If we are going to collapse I hope it happens in the next few years while I can still see 500m and drop a 175gr pill down a raiding commie's throat. I do remain optimistic however because the level of rage against the authoritarian left has never been greater. If they lose the next couple elections the collectivist global elite's agenda may get set back decades.


.

 

[Faun]

That became a dispute. Lincoln claimed that once a state joined the gang the people had to be murdered to prevent them from ever leaving. South Carolina, and I (a Yankee), maintain that the state had a right to vote to leave the union just as they voted to join the union.

Lincoln was also denying the right of states to decide for themselves the economic issue of using African labor, important to Carolina's economic health. I think the reasonable position was that state's, not Lincoln's.

Secession started before Lincoln was president. So it did not occur due to any of Lincoln's policies on slavery.

And there was no dispute over ownership of Fort Sumter. South Carolina gave it to the federal government in 1836. South Carolina had no right to unilaterally take it back.

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln was also denying the right of states to decide for themselves the economic issue of using African labor, important to Carolina's economic health

Economic Issue?

 

[Riff Raff]

Secession started before Lincoln was president. So it did not occur due to any of Lincoln's policies on slavery.

And there was no dispute over ownership of Fort Sumter. South Carolina gave it to the federal government in 1836. South Carolina had no right to unilaterally take it back.

I edited to add this before seeing your reply, so I'm moving it down here:

Even with hindsight, we now know how much harm Lincoln's decision created for the US, some of it unresolved today. Lincoln took legal property without compensating its owners. The end of slavery everywhere just needed more time, time for an economic replacement to develop. Lincoln unnaturally forced the issue resulting in great destruction and death. Remember, these were Americans he destroyed.

 

[Riff Raff]

Secession started before Lincoln was president. So it did not occur due to any of Lincoln's policies on slavery.

It was anticipated that Lincoln, once elected, would revoke the right of individual states to decide that issue for themselves, as had always been the case.

And there was no dispute over ownership of Fort Sumter. South Carolina gave it to the federal government in 1836. South Carolina had no right to unilaterally take it back.

As I already pointed out, that changed once SC was no longer in the US. That's obvious.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

False. It was U.S. property. South Carolina had no right to take it back.

Where did the U.S. get that property?

Right. From SC.

 

[Faun]

I edited to add this before seeing your reply, so I'm moving it down here:

Even with hindsight, we now know how much harm Lincoln's decision created for the US, some of it unresolved today. Lincoln took legal property without compensating its owners. The end of slavery everywhere just needed more time, time for an economic replacement to develop. Lincoln unnaturally forced the issue resulting in great destruction and death. Remember, these were Americans he destroyed.

Lincoln didn't attack the south to end slavery. He attacked it because the Confederacy committed an act of war by firing upon a U.S. fort.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Given how much the military hates the Trump-traitors, their fantasies of Civil War would get them killed very quickly.

I suggest you _not_ FAAFO, traitor. Just stew there alone in your sore-loser fascist thoughts while drinking heavily.

LOL!! only Milley and Austin would be on the side of Progressive Fascists (but I repeat myself) which is why Biden is desperately trying to arm 87,000 IRS mercenaries