(05-16-2019, 09:02 PM)Labster Wrote:(05-16-2019, 01:26 PM)Rajvik Wrote: The problems with breaking up the country are multiple and painful, historically it was tried and failed because one side said "HELL NO, YOUR GONNA DO AS WE SAY!" and they had the force of arms to make it stick. At that point the breakdown was regional and actually had the easiest and best chance of a allowable split. Now the problem is rural versus urban and progressive versus conservative, and every state has both, and it's not like we can put walls around your cities and let you govern your cities like you want while we govern our rural areas like we want.
(ok arguably we could but you would cry because you couldn't get things that you wanted/needed to survive and have a comfortable life. but that's life under seige)
Whoa whoa whoa, that's not how I remember the Civil War. What I recall are some sore losers who lost an election passing a law entitled "Resolution to Call the Election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President a Hostile Act" in December 1860, and laying siege to a US Army fort six days later. And then, when Abraham Lincoln finally took office two months later, he held off on military action. In the middle of April, he sent a resupply mission so our soldiers didn't run out of food, which is when the Confederate forces opened fire on their legal government. From start to finish the Civil War was a aggressive, illegal action on the part of the Southern states where no attempt at legal succession was ever made. It was not "do as we say" but rather "these people are attacking our army." But that's life under siege.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't most of it just about reducing the number of slaves a person could own? And not to zero, just 'less than you have now?' That's kind of how you lot ended up getting Texas, now that I think about it...