The philosophical differences between those of the right and those on the left on the political spectrum are so great that the threat of a civil war is a distinct possibility. With both sides unwilling to compromise, I think the best solution would be to convert our one divided nation into two separate countries.
Compromise is not possible, The only way to prevent another civil war is to create two separate nations.
Rather than having one disunited nation, we would be much better off as two separate and distinct. I think that California should secede from the United States and become a new blue nation and Texas were to secede and become a red nation the potential of a war between the states could be avoided..
Any of the other states who desired to secede could they join the republic of California or Texas. Any resident unhappy with the political ideology of their new state would be able to free to pack their bags and move to a state where their values were shared by the vast majority of the residents.
Where are comments?
By having two nations we could have one nation for the progressive democrats and another nation for the Constitutional conservatives.
that may be true but eventually there would be another war and it will be between these two factions. what is wrong with allowing individuals to opt in or out of whatever statutes they are currently living under and not paying for the wants and desires of those free loaders who refuse to work to earn anything at all? there is nothing wrong with living ones life under Gods laws and ignoring the socialist who will never work for what they want and who also refuse to live life under Gods laws..
civil war was fought to preserve what the North and Lincoln wanted in the way of survival taxes NOT what the states located in the South wanted. If Lee had not messed up in the last battle we would most likely be living in a completely different world!
The civil war was fought to force the southern states to accept the tyranny of the federal government. The federal government under Lincoln fought the war to end the sovereignty of the states. South Carolina had advised that the fort needed to be abandoned. Lincoln deliberately began resupplying to instigate South Carolina's response and it worked. They wanted a seceded state to fire the first shot so they could call upon the state militias because US troops had been fired upon. Otherwise the northern states could have just refused his call for troops. Hos call for troops from Virginia is the reason Lee and Virginia refused and left the union. "After Lincoln made a call for troops immediately after Fort Sumter, a majority of Virginians voted in favor of secession feeling that the Federal government of the Union was becoming too coercive".
what you said is true but I was referring to the last battle of the civil war, not the beginning.
Well this we agree on then. Last battle which one are you referring to. I believe no matter how Lee fought he would have lost. He could nto replace lost troops, while the north could easily and did. It is why grant won his battles against Lee. He just kept throwing more and more troops at Lee. He never stopped. He didnt care how many died or were injured. He just kept throwing more and more men at Lee. The only chance Lee could have had is if he either pressed the battle of Gettysburg against one of the flanks before mcclellan got the majority of his troops onscene. They should have seized the high grounds.. Though in hindsight i would have withdrawn and found better grounds. Lee Never was able to replace the men he lost at gettysburg. His army never stood a chance afterwards
Right on, sir.
the civil war was not a civil war it was a war of northern aggression, we were invaded, and lincoln wanted our money, he was a tyrant .our country went from a constitutional republic to a federalist empire
Lincoln fought the war to save the union???? Please!!!That notion is pablum dished up by revisionist historians. Lincoln launched this country into a terribly destructive war to save it? Does that make ANY sense at all? Of course not. To save the union from itself? Huh? Who gave him that authority. Certainly not the founders. He invaded the CSA to maintain the considerable and burdensome flow of southern tariffs into the federal treasury. Also, he invaded the CSA, a legitimately sovereign country because, as he said, he didn't want to be the President who presided over the union's dissolution. In truth, the only sovereignty during 1861-1865 which was defending a constitutional republic of, by and for the People was the CSA. His tyrannical actions clothed in high-sounding rhetorical flourishes accomplished much more than the destruction of the CSA, a model of Jeffersonian democracy; he obliterated the Constitution and the foundational principle of dual federal-state sovereignty. As a result, since 1865 this faux constitutional republic has been in a deep and dizzying spiral into tyranny. States are vassals, not States; the People are but annoying pawns of the rich and powerful. The union has clearly outlived its usefulness. Well past time for a divorce.