The hate-filled bigotry of certain northern liberals has been on display for many months during the presidential campaign, but the more recent “blue-state secession” talk merely underscores their hatred, their lack of understanding and their hypocrisy.

A Democrat power-broker named Lawrence O’Donnell first spewed the idea of “blue state secession” on the McLaughlin Group television show and it has since been repeated on the pages of the New York Times and other publications. Naturally, all the political talk shows picked up on that and it’s really got political folks buzzing. SLATE Magazine recently published a story entitled, “Let’s Ditch Dixie,” in which they illustrated the sentiment:

“The South is a gangrenous limb that should have been lopped off decades ago.”

Well...let’s not beat around the bush…tell us what you really think.

The Kennedy brothers in their book, THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT, along with many others have made the point, but it bears repeating.

The South was right, and any state had and has the right to secede. The Constitution does not specifically address the issue because it was universally understood that the "independent and sovereign" States voluntarily formed a union and therefore could leave it at will.

There have been some unrelated recent and serious discussions of secession in states like Vermont. There have always been Southerners who advocate Southern nationhood. The “mainstream” media, supported by “statistics” from the hate-filled bigots at the Southern Poverty Law Center, have always characterized the League of the South as “neo-secessionist” group that is “way outside the mainstream.” The SPLC names the League as a “hate group.” That ridiculous assertion has been refuted elsewhere and is the subject of another column.

In American history, there have been numerous serious discussions of secession. The northeastern states threatened secession in protest of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (Timothy Pickering) and again when Louisiana applied for statehood. Massachusetts Senator Josiah Quincy voiced the threat publicly numerous times in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1811. In 1814, near the end of the War of 1812, the New England states’ economies were devastated by Great Britain’s ability to obstruct their maritime shipping and trade with naval power. The New England states held a meeting in Hartford, CT, to make plans for cutting a deal with Great Britain and seceding to form their own country. In 1845, when Texas was considered for statehood, the New England states again threatened secession. Noted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison advocated northern secession to avoid contact and association with slave states.

None of these New Englanders were ever accused of being traitors. None were ever tried for sedition or treason. None were even publicly criticized and secession was never seriously questioned until 1860. Even President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason because the Federal Government knew they would lose the case in open court---undoing their whole justification for the invasion and conquest of the South.

They nevertheless dumped heaps of propaganda on Americans for decades and continued to refer to the War to prevent Southern Independence as the “War of the Rebellion” and the most popular oxymoron, “the Civil War.” They continue to praise Lincoln for “saving the Union” when in fact he destroyed the voluntary union and Constitutional Republic as the Framers designed it. They continue to pretend the war was about slavery and to ignore or downplay the other essential issues (tariffs and tax policy).

William Lloyd Garrison's secession advocacy was the only northern one based on a principle of justice (abolition) rather than strictly self-interest. In each instance of New England secession plots, the critical issue was always money and political power. The opening of the Mississippi River posed a financial threat to New England's shipping and ports (as did Southern independence!); hence their opposition to the Louisiana purchase and Louisiana statehood. They wanted to end the War of 1812 on any terms that would restore their shipping trade despite Great Britain's invasion of America and burning of Washington, D.C. They wanted to prevent Texas' admission as a state because another Southern state would make yankee domination in Congress more difficult.

Now, once again, we see the ugly side of hypocrisy. The so-called “blue states,” because they lost the 2004 election and have realized they cannot force their opinions, depravity and immoral vision on the rest of the country, have once again decided that secession is, in fact, a good idea. They like the idea of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, special treatment---taxpayer funded of course---for all manner of perverts and minority groups, they like the U.N. and any other organization that practices the “Blame America First” mindset. In short, they want to impose their vision of “political correctness”…it’s their way or the highway.

Let me get this straight. Secession was acceptable from 1787 until 1860 when it became “illegal.” Then it has become legal again in 2004. Hmmm.

Obviously, they believe in secession when they think it will be advantageous to them and they don’t believe in secession when it’s not in their monetary advantage. What the blue-staters also fail to see is that----they need us, we don’t need them. Does New York and California really believe that they will dominate the media of the remaining united States? Without the revenues generated from that activity, where do they think their food will come from? Do they really think that we will beg them to stay with us?

There's a little bit of poetic justice in the secession talk. O'Donnell and others lament that "red" states get more from the federal government than the "blue" states. TaxFoundation.org has a table showing by state over the last ten years who gets more or less in federal spending according to what they pay in. Georgia has averaged losing a few pennies on every dollar paid. Mississippi is a big winner. New York and Massachusetts are big losers. Join me in a big laugh here.

It's funny, but it's not. I've always said that the yankee states and yankee citizens lost a lot of liberty in the War to Prevent Southern Independence. They helped Lincoln crush our Constitutional republic and now we're all reaping what they sowed. They are getting a smaller "return" of federal tax dollars than many southern states. Of course, I attribute a lot of this to the fact that the South has always had better statesmen and politicians. "Since the South was NOT allowed to leave, well, then we'll just learn how to play the pork game better than the yankees." Besides, with all the loot and treasure the yankees stole during "Reconstruction," it's only fair that Southern states get a little of that back. And that's not even talking about "reparations" for yankee war crimes on civilians and private property.

Obviously, this recent secession “movement” is based on a childish temper tantrum and will lead nowhere. Even the majority of the liberals and left-wingers in those blue states will not support the idea once they think it through.

Additionally, the blue states are split themselves. When the electoral map is colored blue or red BY COUNTY, another picture emerges. Does upstate New York want to secede with NY city? Probably not.

But the obvious question for us is, since “those people” brought up the idea, why don’t we INSIST that they go. “You people brought it up and if y’all don’t leave us, we will leave you.”

Why doesn’t Atlanta secede from Georgia and form their own blue state? Many Georgians have been advocating that for some time. In much the same attitude, Atlanta wants us to grow the food and send in our tax dollars, but otherwise they want us to shut up and let them run the state government. Even within the victorious Republican Party in Georgia, the rural/urban/sub-urban split is becoming visible. How this shakes out will be interesting to watch. I fear that Atlanta will dominate unless Georgia voters wake up and force their representatives to represent THEM, not Atlanta.

Back to the national scene...

The liberals are going nuts with Big-Government Bush as the president. Can you imagine their reaction if we could have elected Michael Peroutka or Joseph Sobran as president? Peroutka is a true constitutionalist, someone who would seek to dismantle the Washington empire, limit the federal government and return power to the states. Had the election been between Bush and Peroutka, most likely all those blue counties would be Bush counties.

I know, I know, now I’m talking like a dreamer. George Wallace and Ross Perot were probably the closest we'll come to a third party president in my lifetime. It depends on what the Republicans do with their power over the next four years. The ball's in their court.

I’m just hoping that all the current secession talk will take root and cause people to seriously consider the advantages it could bring. At a minimum, it will provide a high profile example of hypocrisy and illustrate just how shallow and immoral the “South-bashing” and heritage-haters have been. It may cause a few people to really ponder the relative roles of the state governments and the federal government.

I can just see little Midwestern and Yankee school children puzzling over the question. “Mrs. Smith…I thought you told us that secession was wrong and that the Southerners were evil Rebels. Why is it OK for New York and California to talk about secession now?”

Steve Scroggins is a frequent GHC contributor of parody and political cartoons and graphics.