Is it time for secession?

Should the United States break up?

  • Yes, individual states have the right to self government

    Votes: 36 54.5%

  • Maybe, but I need to study the question further

    Votes: 17 25.8%

  • No, the US government should use force to keep the States under control

    Votes: 13 19.7%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I though this exact same discussion was already held with the exact same arguments back in 1860 with the same outcome back then that would take place today. In the movie Rhett Butler tried to remind those in favor of secession that there was not a single cannon factory in the South.:o
 
Wait. Not yet. First, we need for some of the trends to get further along and we need to get geographically separated a good deal more.


The inherently two-party nature of our government will be key. Within 100 years, the Democrats will have unchallenged, one-party rule over large sections of the present United States. There will be elections in those regions, but the outcomes will be decided by unelected power brokers similar to a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton today. The Party will run only one candidate per office and there won't be any opposition, so the voters won't matter.


Elsewhere, civilized people will congregate and keep the American culture going. People in these areas may be able to negotiate with the extra-Constitutional leaders in the benighted regions to retain control at the national level by ceding to them the regions in which they already have one-party rule. But it may be that the Democrats will go for the brass ring and try to use the good people as a bottomless ATM in which case the good people will have to say goodbye.


Nothing can happen until 2050 at the earliest. More like 2100.
 
I though this exact same discussion was already held with the exact same arguments back in 1860 with the same outcome back then that would take place today. In the movie Rhett Butler tried to remind those in favor of secession that there was not a single cannon factory in the South.
Click to expand...
I don't think too many Southern Boys would engage in a fight to hold California, Oregon, and Washington in the Union should they decide to withdraw, do you?

That's a rhetorical question to illustrate that the dynamic is radically different today, so comparisons with 1860 are hard to make.
 
Neither does Singapore. They're doing pretty well. In this day and age, mental resources trump physical.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't have that, either. It's why we import so many H1Bs, because public education is an abysmal failure. And because government actually stands in the way of research with endless red tape. Look at what Japan's biotech labs are doing vs. here. What the entire pacific rim is doing with semiconductors and miniaturized electronics vs. here. We have a couple of innovative companies like Intel, but they're pushing ahead by leaps and bounds.

We now have a "service economy".
 
I did not choose from the list of answers because they did not address the question. The answers addressed the right of states to secede, which I do believe they have that right, but that's not what the question asked. That could be a viable option for regaining our rights, but it is a measure that should not be taken lightly.

For those who would condem the Southern states for what they did in 1861; how was it any different from what the first 13 states did in 1776?
 
Secession may not be mentioned as "secession" in the Constitution. It is covered by insurrection and rebellion however.
 
Secession may not be mentioned as "secession" in the Constitution. It is covered by insurrection and rebellion however.
Click to expand...
Actually, that speaks to take over by force of arms of either the federal or state governments. Secession of a state or group of states is in fact covered by Amendment X,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Secession would in fact have to be prohibited to the states expressly in order for the "insurrection and rebellion" section to be activated.

Reference: 1. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
2. A Constitutional History of Secession

Hopefully, this will end this deviation from the question.

I think, too, that some are looking in the wrong place in history, since most know little of the 140 year old secession attempt in America. Perhaps some should look at more recent history. The old Soviet Union saw a number of lawful, relatively bloodless secessions since 1989. Although Russia, for several reasons, is still influential in the area, we might look to those secessions as good examples of the activity. There's an ongoing potential secession with Belgium possibly separating into at least two countries, which may or may not align themselves with other countries with which they share a history. Flanders, for example may go it alone, or affiliate with Netherlands since both speak Dutch. Wallonia may go it alone, or affiliate with France since they're native French speakers. The chance of warfare breaking out in Belgium is very low.

There is simply no need for violence in this question, and none is anticipated in America. I think we need to consider the benefits, which in my opinion are many; and the negatives, which in my opinion are few.
 
Not to niggle, but the U.S. Constitution includes no mechanisms for petition, recall or referendum. Your state constitution may vary.

Powderman said:

2. The Constitution of the United States provides three remedies for this situation--the petition, referendum, and the recall.

Let's get together, and use the BALLOT box, shall we?
Click to expand...
 
It didn't work the first time because the bigger party simply couldn't stomach the idea of having someone tell them "no." Control was and is the only goal. The difference between a revolution and a civil war is only in who wins.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't work the first time because the "right" that the south was fighting for was the right to own other human beings. It failed because they were fighting for a disgusting cause and their ideas needed to be squashed.

And before anyone starts, I know that it wasn't the only issue. But it was certainly a big one and certainly one that justified the spanking the Union dished out.
 
Look at us--some here will back a candidate by voting when that candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance of being elected.

We also let the same politicians stay in office and cry about what is happening.
Click to expand...

Powderman, did you really say BOTH of those things in the same post?

Even if we don't keep the same individual in office, we keep the same type of individual. That's because not enough people will vote for a different type because he "doesn't have a snowball's chance of being elected.":confused:
 
I don't think we're at the secession stage yet, but we may be close to having a state legislature/governor or three who tell DC that their particular state will not enforce/fund/recognize certain federal laws (immigration or environmental laws, probably) and withhold state funds from the feds, styme federal enforcement efforts, and even seize federal property.

...and then what happens?

The next Civil War will look less like Gettysburg & more like Northern Ireland...the federal government vs. multiple factions. Add to that foreign powers "supporting" certain factions to help destabilize the US, and you have a clusterf....you can guess....

Do I think it will happen in my lifetime? Yes. Do I look forward to it? No. I'll mourn the death of my nation then....
 
I thought this one was answerred at the Appomattox court house

surrender.jpg
 
No, it didn't work the first time because the "right" that the south was fighting for was the right to own other human beings. It failed because they were fighting for a disgusting cause and their ideas needed to be squashed.
Click to expand...
No, that's incorrect. Read Lincoln's First Inaugural address to find out the correct answer. Further, at least four states that remained in the Union after April 1861 had chattel slavery under the law. The southern states fought against an unlawful invasion, period.

And before anyone starts, I know that it wasn't the only issue. But it was certainly a big one and certainly one that justified the spanking the Union dished out.
Click to expand...
No, Lincoln's murder of over one million people was far more than a "spanking", AND completely unnecessary. May I remind you, again, that the southern states were not the first group of states that considered secession, Google the Hartford Convention.
I thought this one was answerred at the Appomattox court house.
Click to expand...
No, if that were true, a secession prohibition upon the states would have been proposed, passed, and ratified by the states. That wasn't done, and arguments settled at gun point seldom remained in that state.

This thread isn't about the War of Northern Agression, it's about whether secession is an answer to the leviathan state we have now.
 
it didn't work the first time because the "right" that the south was fighting for was the right to own other human beings.
Click to expand...
It didn't work because yankees had numerical superiority and, in the days of muskets, that meant military superiority.

Slavery was a States' right protected by the US Constitution, and yankees turned against the US Constitution, which simply isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be. And of course yankees freed the slaves from the safety of their lily white States, which also isn't the moral high ground that they pretend it to be.
 
For those who would condem the Southern states for what they did in 1861; how was it any different from what the first 13 states did in 1776?
Click to expand...

They lost? ;)

It's also arguable, as Redworm points out, that their cause (some portion of that cause) was a bit more just. The right of states to allow people to own other people isn't necessarily something most would care to defend nowadays.

Though, as Hugh Damright points out, prior to the 13th and 14th amendments (the thirteenth banning explicitly, and the 14th banning it implicitly by applying the Bill of Rights to states) it actually was something that was most definitely within the power of the states.

No, Lincoln's murder of over one million people was far more than a "spanking", AND completely unnecessary. May I remind you, again, that the southern states were not the first group of states that considered secession, Google the Hartford Convention.
Click to expand...

They were, unless I'm mistaken, the first group of states to actually secede, though.

No, that's incorrect. Read Lincoln's First Inaugural address to find out the correct answer. Further, at least four states that remained in the Union after April 1861 had chattel slavery under the law. The southern states fought against an unlawful invasion, period.
Click to expand...

This makes the assumption that the secession was lawful in the first place. Or that the appropriation of federal property (and firing on federal troops) within the seceding states was lawful. [EDIT: Probably some others as well.] Nearly any statement that "the southern states fought against [x], period" where [x] is less than about 500 words is probably going to fall a little short of reality. Any claim that the Civil War was solely about slavery is incorrect...as is any claim that slavery played no role. And referring to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" (who fired first?) probably betrays a bias regarding the issue that will not be overcome through polite (or impolite) discourse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top