A Red and Blue Divorce?

The red and the blue—states that is– are as different as the colorless black and white landscapes absent from the color spectrum. The concept of separate states for separate cultures is as old as Canaan and Egypt. The concept of separation for moral law is as old as these two, as well.

Today on any given “news” outlet, maps are displayed of the 50 United states with some states colored red and some colored blue. The distinction is usually drawn that the blue are democrats, the red Republicans. The blue, supposedly, are more liberal (not literally), the red more conservative (again not literally). But each a conglomeration of each of the other with the color running anywhere from 55-45% to 65-35%, the majority number determining the color of the state. And that majority is generally a fixture of the wants and needs of that state and often its culture.

Once, the original states (formerly colonies) were drawn into a confederated union for defense in their efforts to secede from their covenant host in Europe—The British Empire. Their secession was not from a tyrannical king, though such nonsense is perpetrated constantly by the socialistic-styled Eric Foner historical mischief i.e. that the colonies declared a single unilateral declaration of independence as a single state. This is ahistorical and therefore rubbish.

In fact, they seceded from the British Empire which was controlled by its parliament which, in fact, was controlled by The East India Company. This was, in its time, a corporate welfare beast that was (again in its time) probably more powerful than Google and Amazon combined, today.

The Boston Tea party took place due to the East India Company’s arm twisting of parliament which allowed, through corrupt legislation, the EIC a monopoly on tea from The British Empire into the colonies. The colonists were not going to pay a tax that was designed around corruption.

The colonies became THESE United States and not THE United States—the former being the factual truth. Five states had singularly seceded via each’s declaration of independence prior to the now-famous July 4th Declaration of Independence: Virginia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. The entirety of 13 signed the single document in July 1776 (following the Jefferson-Virginia styled document) purely as a show of strength. At the time there was no body of a single colonial government other than a Continental Congress, which had no authority other than suggestive influence through mutual consent among the independent colonies.

The Articles of Confederation came five years later and the U.S. Constitution 11 years later. But both of these were confederated republics and NOT a national state. More Eric Foner et al ahistorical foolishness

A pure reading of the July 4th Declaration of Independence states that the colonies seceded and were assuming their places as independent states (not a state) among the nations of the world.

The constant tug of war between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists from the 1787-1790 U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights amendments, up unto the Kansas-Nebraska Act, at least, left the generally Agrarian South and Industrial/Navigation North so far apart as to offer no choice but secession for one culture or the other. Even at that, the upper Southern states were willing to remain in union with the Northern Industrialists and attempt a go of it.

Seventy years after the Constitution (not “four score and seven” hogwash) had been ratified, the 8th secession impulse had arisen, the recent being the first in the South.  The Confederate States of America (C.S.A.) seceded and formed a confederated republic in Montgomery, Alabama.

Previous secession considerations were as follows:

• The New York proposal by its Senator Rufus King and Oliver Ellsworth to dissolve the Union (1794)

• Opponents of Jefferson’s 1803 Louisiana Purchase, notably Josiah Quincy III

• The New England secessionists during the War of 1812

• The Hartford secessionists and their supporters in the Essex Junto (1814-15)

• The secessionism of Federalist and former President John Quincy Adams (1839)

• Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison and the New England Anti-Slavery Conventions (1834, 1844, 1858)

• The proposed secession of five Middle Atlantic states (1860).

However, when Lincoln called for troops to invade the South in order to drag them back into the old union, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri declared independence and themselves seceded. Lincoln, now completely determined to unlawfully (unconstitutionally) use troops, invaded Kentucky and Missouri, captured their legislatures, and occupied them. The battle flag of the Confederacy, however, has always retained its 13 stars.

After the war, the conquered South forced back into a single national state, created by Lincoln and the Republicans remained loyal to its belief that secession was legal and proper. But they joined with honor.

As a final insult, in 1869, in Supreme Court Ruling, 5-3, in Texas vs White, the court ruled by Salmon Chase—the John Roberts of the day-that the South had no right to secede (though the 13 colonies apparently had such a right). Chase’s opinion was not based on anything other than as a Lincoln appointee (as were the other concurring justices) he had to make a slaughter (erroneously called a Civil War) of over 600,000 Americans seem acceptable, if not legal. Also, it was to renege on bearer bonds due to people in the state of Texas. In other words, the ruling was so much political bilge.

So much for the past. Now for the prologue:

Today, much of the old South retains its view of secession as well as its large agrarian culture. The South is mostly a red area politically. And even the extension of red areas into the mountain states and mid-west is a culture of landowners, independent business owners, and generally devotees of small limited governance. Such governance desires absence from lockdowns, mandatory masks, endless government foreign wars, high taxes for social tinkering, and pseudo-scientific green nonsense.

Further the idea that though they have fallen from a republic (a government with limited voters who necessarily follows the law) to a democracy where the mob grows larger and larger, hardly holds for them.

Finally, a system where dead people vote and imaginary people vote in order to defraud the people of their choice of president, and governors who lock them up might be too much. Political thugs demand of them that which these thugs are themselves unwilling to do.

These same blue- governments foist a dishonest system on the people where certain taxpayers are not allowed to work but still must pay taxes so these political thugs can get their “essential” paychecks.

Many people (me, for one, in Texas) will stand up and state categorically that they have no desire to remain under a government where what has become known as the Washington “Deep State” rules via bureaucrats and corrupt state-like police such as the F.B.I., C.I.A.  and the I. R.S.

In my view these are no more protective of the people and their rights than The Center for Disease Control or any number of M.D.s who act more like political hooligans than Hippocrates students of healing.

However, spitting into two areas, red and blue still have problems. The un-structuring of the two monstrous beasts of the Federal Reserve (not even constitutional) and the IRS need immediate attention. This second beast is technically constitutional in its creation but has destroyed much of the rest of the constitution by its own high-handed (see Lois Lerner as an example of a myriad of examples) practices over its history.

And not the least of the problems is the split in political character in the red zone. Many so-called conservatives simply abide the traditional Southern conservativism for the gain of the Republican party. The Republican party was founded in nationalism and warfare and remains tied to it through its RINOs and its own Washington “Deep Staters.”

These are the same people who have tied the world-wide caste and 5000 years of what has been generally called “slavery” to the American South. This is the same South where only 5% of these slaves brought to the western Hemisphere ended up in the American South. But today, the South and its red block of determinative conservatives are damned constantly with the ubiquitous and so-called ambiguous epithet—RACIST.

Therefore, the biggest block of conservatives is the biggest block of red-staters—the South. But they are condemned to pay for slavery although they had the least criminal intent and the least responsibility in it insofar as slavery being transported to the New World.

So, two reds and a blue are the splits to be had.  

The only way of a successful secession would be for the truth to be told historically. That truth? That the republic was destroyed in 1865. A national government was formed and has grown into a nearly complete socialist-Marxist leviathan. Voters have no say. The unelected Washington Deep State has all to say.

The red states need to understand what freedom is. But they can only understand this if they understand what secession is. They can only understand if they truly understand what a declaration of independence means. If they can ever listen to historians who know what it meant.

You might also enjoy these articles...