Right now polling shows public support at just over 50% so what many Scots have been dreaming of and fighting for since the days of William Wallace (who Mel Gibson played in 'Braveheart') and Robert the Bruce (early 14th century) could soon become reality..
The US news of course couldn't give a bleep because well, it doesn't affect most Americans in any way and the financial news just focus on how those precious G-D markets will be affected, if at all..
Why is it OK that the rest of the world break free of itself and create new nations from the rubble of old, yet in America, a bloody expensive four year war had to be fought killing over 600,000 people to force one section a la shotgun marriage to stay with the other against its will?
Think of all the nations that were formed in and around the 1920s from the compost heap that once was the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary..
And everyone celebrated this..
Well everyone except the Nazis.. So Hitler did what the Union did to the South in the 1860s -- Force by gunpoint sovereign nations back into the fold..
The only difference between the two was after Hitler took back Austria and Czechoslovakia and Alsace-Lorraine and then Poland, other nations decided to military intervene to stop this..
And no one seemed to mind or object in the US to the Soviet Union collapsing on itself in the late 1980s causing the secession and creation of fifteen independent states
In fact we're about to start a horrific war with Russia to prevent them from taking back Ukraine.
And no one in America really cared that Czechoslovakia broke in two to form Czech Republic and Slovania
And no one in America really will care if Quebec ever one day breaks free from Canada just like no one here cares on Scotland and UK
Every nation around the world is allowed to break from another and fight for their right to exist and govern themselves and quite often with US blessing and/or protection..
All the former colonies in Africa and in India and Israel.... We celebrated and encouraged their independence
One of the most interesting questions that can be asked in terms of a lively discussion is historically what would have happened if there was a CSA bordering a USA?
Here's our theories:
** The importation of slaves was outlawed in the CSA Constitution of 1861, thus slavery would slowly have collapsed under its own weight at about the same time as mechanization comes to agriculture in the 1870s.
The freed slaves would become sharecroppers, or become a part of the workforce necessary in the manufacturing boom in the CSA or just migrate North to experience real prejudice like current history showed.
** The territories west of the Mississippi eventually seek statehood, and must decide with which nation they will align themselves. Arizona and New Mexico enter the Confederacy.
The CSA will want access to the Pacific Ocean so ultimately by diplomatic solution of military conflict, they would ultimately claim southern California
** CSA makes all its currency backed by gold and silver.
Southern banks are not regulated by the government and are allowed to coin their own money thus fractional banking is not allowed in the CSA and there will never be the creation of a Fed-like entity to control the money supply
** Coal is also produced and exported to the North from the vast fields of Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia (remember that there is no West Virginia if the CSA is allowed to peaceably exist)
Thus the South would be a major regional and global player in agriculture, silver mining, oil and now coal... The US would be largely economically dependent on their former countrymen
Because of the Kaiser victory, there is no Versailles treaty, no war reparations, no ultimate German economic depression or economic hyper-inflation..
Thus no birth nor rise of the Nazi party, no Hitler, and no second World War (unless France provoked it) and no Holocaust killing 12 million people including 6 million Jews.. You'd still have people embrace Aryan superiority myths but there'd be no government sponsored 'Final Solution'
So yes.. over 70 million lives would have been spared between 1939-1945 had the Allies lost the 'Great War' and the only reason the tide was turned in their favor was US involvement in 1918.
~ CSA veteran.. He fought for the Confederacy..
We could go on and show how history would have been altered for the better up until the present but we feel what we presented was sufficient enough.
The US did not provoke an attack on Ft Sumter to start armed conflict and fight a prolonged war to free the slaves.
If it did, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued at the war's onset in 1861 and included slaves in US held territories like Maryland and Delaware.
~ So did these two.. Look who is holding the rifle?
And in terms of slavery, the big concern among Southerners wasn't that Lincoln if elected President would stop slavery in land where it already was in existence.. It was that Lincoln would prevent southwest expansion
So to say the Union fight was noble and pure is deeply naive..
But the lesson is like everything else about how this nation governs and dictates around the world, what's good for the goose is not what's good for the gander..
~ Confederate soldier reunion.
In other words, there's two sets of rules.. our rules and the rules others must follow since we carry the big stick and now the big bomb and we believe we possess the biggest balls...
The world would have been a better place in so many ways had the Confederacy been allowed to peaceably secede by referendum as Scotland may do in the coming days..
But few to none will ever admit this because to the victors come the spoils and among the biggest reward, the freedom to re-write the history.
And there isn't an academic subject more poorly taught in schools and which people are more overall deeply ignorant in than American History
~ Confederate Vets