We've been getting out redneck asses beat up on since losing the war of northern agression. Our forefathers are considered hallowed wise men for having the terminity and courage to stand up to and free themselves from the oppressive regime of King George. Their sons stood up to what they saw was unbearable oppression and fought to create a nation as they saw right and lost. Now I see these threads repeadely about California, Texas, Illinois, and New York as not being part of the rest of the nation. Question is, do free people - a state if you will, have the right - the duty, to create a government by which they wish to be governed? If not what's the difference between 1776, 1862 and 2007? Consider 10-15 million illegal mostly non English speaking folks who have publically stated they will take back the southeast. And don't bring up the slave business, it was legal in the United States for over two hundred years and the Emancipation Proclimation wasn't unitl 1863 after Gettysburg when Lincoln saw he had a good chance of winning and that it was to drain Southern war capacity. In 1860, of 7 million non-slaves in the South, only 384,000 owned any slaves at all. That means that 6.6 million Southerners were non-slave owners, and if you think that they would leave their homes and farms to fight for the planters' right to own slaves, you don't know much about Southern culture.

Who knows now. I like states rights though.

After they found that no nation would recognize them because of their keeping slaves, they would have welcomed every Mexican who would work cheap.

If you'd like to read a plausible outcome of the South not losing the Civil War, read Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels, beginning withAmerican Front.

I don't think you'll like what the world might have been like.