Could the US really break up?
Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Those who ignore trends that parallel history are sticking their heads in the sand and “hoping” (praying) the outcome will be different.
I’m not going to make a big deal out of this, but will put it out there as “food for thought.” What is happening now politically in the United States is not without precedent in the nation’s history. Yet nobody wants to face the fact that the time in history we are developing a parallel to is one of the most difficult periods in the history of our nation – the civil war.
Prior to the civil war, there was a growing distrust between the southern states and the northern states. These tensions were bubbling under the surface for years, as the economically dominate north was gaining in political influence, the south was concerned they would use that influence to oppress the more agrarian south. While the issue of slavery was the catalyst that brought the distrust to a head, in the Federal government’s eyes, the issue of state’s rights vs. the power of the Federal government was the main issue.
Most people believe that the civil war was fought over slavery. That was a secondary issue. The primary issue was whether or not states had a right to leave the union. Could the south seceded and escape the threat of tyranny from the north? Now that I’ve opened that can of worms, let me tell you how that parallels what is developing today.
Fast forward to 2010. We have a growing distrust between Americans based on the fundamental structure of our government at all levels and its role in citizens lives. This distrust has been bubbling under the surface for years, if not decades. It has finally surfaced in the form of the Tea Party and is gaining momentum. As this move toward ideological confrontation intensifies, it is beginning to effect the relationship between states. The catalyst this time appears to be immigration. Interestingly enough, an issue that deals with “human rights.”
Arizona’s passage of tough immigration laws is drawing sharp criticism from Washington. It is also beginning to cause states to divide on the issue. Seventeen more states have legislation proposed that is similar to Arizona’s law. Yet in California the government officials loath the law so much they have called for a boycott of Arizona. Other scattered organizations around the country have done the same. In retaliation, Arizona threatens to cut off power to California. Does anyone else recognize how serious this is becoming?
The Federal government once again is asserting the IT has the right to enforce laws that will supposedly keep all states law on immigration uniform, and by their twisted logic, all American citizens happy. The Federal government does not care for the assertion by states such as Arizona that they have the right to govern their people according to their own standards and the Federal government has little or no say in it. With a growing backlash against Federal government overreach, many who do not necessarily like Arizona’s immigration law are none-the-less supporting its right to do what it has. This intensifies the fact that the main issue today isn’t immigration, it’s state’s rights – again. Immigration, like slavery before it, is simply the catalyst.
The parallels are unmistakable and history tells us these two opposing positions will not coexist. If one believes that another major conflict within the United States is not possible, then one ignores history at their peril. If we could learn from our past, then the real debate – that of states rights vs. Federal government’s rights – would be the central issue debated in the upcoming elections. Instead it appears as though history could repeat itself as the immigration issue (among others) muddies the waters and distracts the politicians from talking about the real issue at hand. Doing so could lead to another very troubling period in American history and a major test of state’s vs. the Federal government.
Category: Constitution
Agenda – Grinding America Down (5 star!)
State level onflict is another essential piece of the old plan to engender sufficient misery that people will welcome a new regional system when it's ready to be unveiled a couple decades from now. "Any port in a storm," so to speak.
Living in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, where the idea that the 50 states party to the Constitution were put into their place with the Federal Gov't dictating the rules make me uncomfortable. Living in Illinois (or any of the 50 states party to the Constitution) under the dictator Obama, still attempting to squash states rights, is downright depressing.
I'm not sure if I should attempt to vote with my feet and move to another state or even another country or simply stand and fight for what is right.
I am reminded of Caleb from Numbers 13-14 and Josua when Caleb spied the Promised Land. 10 were bad and 2 were good. But because the people were fearful they were forced to spend a lifetime in the desert, instead of doing what Godly men were saying. If only the children of God had listened to that still small voice. If only WE would do the same!!!
David. So interesting that you referenced Numbers 13-14. I gave a sermon series recently on reworking the Grid, and that was a primary text for one of my sermons. Here's the link if you are interested.
http://www.themountain.us/mo/files/Mountain_02_21…
Let us never forget that this abomination called the United States was never meant to be. We were supposed to be a loose federalism of independent countries. At that time the term "State" still held that meaning.
This Nationalist cancer has even invaded our pledge of allegiance. Do the words "one nation indivisible" sound familiar? I think the founders would become ill at the utterance of those words. The tyrant Lincoln used them to murder 400,000 people.
I do not look at what will most likely happen as the breaking up of anything, but more as getting back to the way things were supposed to be.