Sorry for one mistake...in the video – the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were in 1798, not 1898.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Southern Nationalism
The Southern people are a distinct nation of people in the world. That’s where the argument for Southern independence should begin. This is not a legal debate; it’s a fact of reality here on this planet. All we want is self-determination.
Sorry for one mistake...in the video – the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were in 1798, not 1898.
Southern Nationalist Network
Sorry for one mistake...in the video – the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were in 1798, not 1898.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've often argued on my site Quebec is like the South.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: If there were to be a referendum would the South garner enough votes to win?
I ask because up here we've had two referendums and both times Canada (Federalism) won out.
While south of the mason dixon line, my friend looking at real estate shared a few words about north-south views with her realtor.
ReplyDeleteYou know what we say about you northereners don't you? he queried. The only good northener is a dead northener... you know what we say about you southeners don't you she asked? NOTHING. we don't think about you at all.
I guess the civil war is still alive and well in the south. sadly... Doreen
The south has, for whatever reason, tried desperately to hang onto the grudge. I don't understand it... it's probably a southerner thing. Texans are proud of the Alamo, even though they got their asses handed to them by Mexicans there, and Southerners are always talking about how they will "rise again," like a turd in the toilet, I guess.
ReplyDeleteIf the South tried to leave the union again, it would be one hilariously embarrassing ass whooping, again.
If the South tried to leave the union again, it would be one hilariously embarrassing ass whooping, again.
ReplyDeleteThe South whipped the North's ass over and over, but they were outnumbered, as I've pointed out to you over and over. It's easy to win when you have superior numbers, even if your fighting skills suck.
If the South tried to leave the union again, it would be one hilariously embarrassing ass whooping, again
Yeah, a bankrupt Federal Government in Washington would really have the resources to prevent succession if it had mass approval. They don't even have the money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
... and yet they're still outnumbered and ideologically empty. If we have to fight another war just to get universal healthcare, it will be pretty pathetic. Most nations change without having to fight wars about it. It's also amusing that the south is always on the wrong side of history: slavery, segregation, Bush... you name it, the South has pretty much gotten it wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou think we don't have the money to keep fighting two wars overseas, even though we are... but if the south leaves, it will just quietly happen? Really? I think you're starting to buy your own bullshit that the US is collapsing. I guess I just assumed you were taking Fox News kickbacks or something, but maybe you're just oblivious.
You think we don't have the money to keep fighting two wars overseas, even though we are
ReplyDeleteThat won't last much longer. A debtor nation can't maintain the expense of a vast overseas empire indefinitely. That's the reality, even if you can't see what's staring you in the face.
Texans are not "proud of the Alamo" the Alamo is a symbol of resistance to a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican army lost 33% of it's attack force in the battle, A.L. Santa Anna wanted to use the battle as a propaganda endeavor "was but a small affair with pirates" while his staff officers thought "with another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil"...
Texas then declared independence, forming the Republic of Texas. the rallying cries, "Remember the Alamo!" and "Remember Goliad!" became reminders during the slaughter at San Jacinto where the actions of Santa Anna caused the resulting butchery. The army of Mexico was defeated in 18 min.
US history is basically the history of Mercantilism (including Hamiltonian Federalism) if you want to call that "right" and "moral" then we have the best example of Northern Narcissism we need.
Puh lease... your aggrandizement of Americans settling on Mexican land and then stealing it through violence is laughable. "Remember the Alamo" was propaganda meant to inspire people to fight.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are still idiots out there trying to deify those who fought at the Alamo just shows how successful it was, even though if it were me, I wouldn't dwell on a defeat. I would say, "Remember the Mexican-American War," since we jacked what became four whole states (CA, NV, NM and UT). Now that's something to proud of... it's not every war that you get to fulfill the Manifest Destiny laid out by the Almighty...
That won't last much longer. A debtor nation can't maintain the expense of a vast overseas empire indefinitely. That's the reality, even if you can't see what's staring you in the face.
ReplyDeleteIt's likely that we'll expand wars into other regions, too. I would be surprised if we didn't have our tentacles reaching to Africa and SE Asia within a decade or two. This isn't what I would do, mind you, I'm just saying that the people we elect in both parties seem to adhere to the colonialist idea that the more energy we spend oppressing and exploiting poor nation, the better off we'll be. I don't see that changing soon, and I doubt credit is going to run out while we keep the people we're borrowing from happy.
"Most nations change without having to fight wars about it."
ReplyDeleteErm. No. Mamy nations did undergo civil wars incuding Ancient Babylon, Greece and Rome, France, Turkey, Spain, Russia, Austria, Ireland, Norway, England and the USA and countless others - I won't even touch Africa and South America. China, for its part, emerged after an expansionist consolidation.
People conquer one another and then they fight to see whose views will prevail.
As for grudges, we have them up here too. Hard line Quebec nationalists are fond of saying, "ont va les avoir les anglais." "We're gonna get the English." No joke. They still say and think this. They still see Canada in a French-English dichotomy. Turds.
You can twist it any way you like Bret, Santa Anna was a dictator, Goliad and the Alamo were reasons that inspired the final approval and revolutionary separation of Texas from Mexico.
ReplyDeleteYou can even try and make it all racial if you like, but the Texas revolution was Anglo and Tejano.
Your history is as religiously statist as your politics.
And I am not talking about the Mexican American war this was before that it was called the Texas Revolution and I'm not trying to deify anyone facts are facts - you just like ignoring the ones that don't fit into your hateful snarky narcissistic yankee propagandized PC college Indoctrinated version.
Nice try...
TC: Nations like, I don't know... Canada, didn't fight wars to end slavery or to become independent. And a nation winning a war doesn't mean they deserve to prevail.
ReplyDeleteRB: I hope you understand that I'm joking about Manifest Destiny, and I know the two conflicts are seperated by several decades. What I mean is... okay let me try to paint a picture:
If Mexicans moved into some state... let's say California, and they said "Bush is a despot" and tried to violently take California back... they would be jackasses. This is exactly what Americans did to Tejas.
Thanks for the bulletin.
ReplyDeleteAh, but you didn't say that. You said, "Most nations change without." Clearly they do. Canada and Australia are exceptions. I wonder if Britain had hung on if they'd fight too. Canada did have rebellions. Now whether it would graduate into a war of independence is a matter of conjecture and speculation.
But again, I'm not sure what you're angle is. Many countries, as you know I'm sure, have fought for their independence.
Bret...
ReplyDelete"If Mexicans moved into some state... let's say California, and they said "Bush is a despot" and tried to violently take California back... they would be jackasses. This is exactly what Americans did to Tejas."
Not exactly - and here is why, Texicans both Anglo and Tejano were given land grants under a Mexican Constitution - Santa Anna became a dictator - in fact he made made many statements about how the Mexicans were too stupid and primitive to rule themselves (look it up).
So to make the California example similar the Mexicans in California would have to:
1. have land grants or business they ran profitably.
2. Operate under a constitution
3. Have that constitution subverted and the ruling new government tell them "a new sheriff is in town" and shake them down for money...
Santa Anna was a jackass... and a two-bit dictator.
1. have land grants or business they ran profitably.
ReplyDelete2. Operate under a constitution
3. Have that constitution subverted and the ruling new government tell them "a new sheriff is in town" and shake them down for money...
Yep, that's Bush alrite... what did Santa Ana do, though?
Oh... I see...