Brexit, Texit, Yes California and Second Vermont Republic

[fmw]

read the rest

Seems we once fought a civil war over this issue, but that was a long time ago. Should states be allowed to leave the union and go their own way?

Perhaps we should make an exception for California.

 

[Captain Adverse]

"Genocide"?

Nope. In fact, that's not even the right term.

Most people simply like firearms. There's a small contingent whose paranoia means their hunkered down in bunkers waiting for something which is never going to happen, but hey---- look what happened the last time people tried to secede, right? The poor southerners just wanted to keep their God given right to own other people :roll: and the Feds ripped them apart.

Ah, but look at what happened the time before that...this nation won it's Independence from Great Britain.

The difference between a Rebellion and a Revolution is whether or not the separatists win.

Many people don't just "like firearms," they believe it is their right to have them for self-defense. Self-defense against animals, criminals, foreign invaders, and their own government if need be. The fact that guns can also be used for hunting, collecting, and sports shooting in no way detracts from their essential purpose as a method of self-defense.

The only reason our nation was able to win it's independence was because those citizens had access to firearms. Texas won it's Independence from Mexico because the people were armed and fought for it. Do you think in either case they would had succeeded using only harsh words? :roll:

Today we have a nation based on democratic principles. Why then shouldn't we allow any State or group of States to peacefully secede if the majority of their citizens vote to do so?

 

[Tigerace117]

Ah, but look at what happened the time before that...this nation won it's Independence from Great Britain.

The difference between a Rebellion and a Revolution is whether or not the separatists win.

Many people don't just "like firearms," they believe it is their right to have them for self-defense. Self-defense against animals, criminals, foreign invaders, and their own government if need be. The fact that guns can also be used for hunting, collecting, and sports shooting in no way detracts from their essential purpose as a method of self-defense.

The only reason our nation was able to win it's independence was because those citizens had access to firearms. Texas won it's Independence from Mexico because the people were armed and fought for it. Do you think in either case they would had succeeded using only harsh words? :roll:

Today we have a nation based on democratic principles. Why then shouldn't we allow any State or group of States to peacefully secede if the majority of their citizens vote to do so?

The American Revolution was an interesting case. Yes, militia proved they could fight---but only on defense. Try anything more complicated then "sit behind this wall/in these trees/on this hill and shoot at the other guy when he shows up" and the citizen soldier was a liability. The lack of discipline nearly cost us the revolution more then once.

India won its independence using much less then harsh language.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The American Revolution was an interesting case. Yes, militia proved they could fight---but only on defense. Try anything more complicated then "sit behind this wall/in these trees/on this hill and shoot at the other guy when he shows up" and the citizen soldier was a liability. The lack of discipline nearly cost us the revolution more then once.

India won its independence using much less then harsh language.

Umm...the point was about a State voting to secede from this Union. Your response was to secede the heads of such voters from their bodies.

I ask again. In a democratic nation, why shouldn't any State or group of States where a majority of the voters elect to secede not be allowed to without violence?

 

[Tigerace117]

Umm...the point was about a State voting to secede from this Union. Your response was to secede the heads of such voters from their bodies.

I ask again. In a democratic nation, why shouldn't any State or group of States where a majority of the voters elect to secede not be allowed to without violence?

Oh, sure, if they are non violent negotiations should be undertaken--- but if part of the state wants to remain loyal they shouldn't be forced to leave.

And in the case of those who want to secede in order to set up their own mini Rhodesia, well...

 

[Goshin]

I'll not add to the good opinions below on the Texas secession specifically, but will opine that with all the bitter divide that still often occurs between those above & below the Mason Dixon Line, that perhaps we all might have been happier if we let the break of 1861 result in two autonomous but friendly countries?

Or even internally autonomous but confederated for purposes of foreign policy and defense.



North and South are really two different cultures.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'll not add to the good opinions below on the Texas secession specifically, but will opine that with all the bitter divide that still often occurs between those above & below the Mason Dixon Line, that perhaps we all might have been happier if we let the break of 1861 result in two autonomous but friendly countries?

I don't know how friendly the two states would have been. The South was still very expansionist. There would have been more then a few points of contention(West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arizona Territory.....)

The US would have looked north to make away for the losses. State of Ontario anyone?

 

[Chomsky]

Or even internally autonomous but confederated for purposes of foreign policy and defense.



North and South are really two different cultures.

Yes, exactly.

A confederation linking the large bulk of commonality, allowing the social & cultural differences to remain antonymous.

However, the main stumbling block I see might be the need to rewrite the constitution! That might be ... problematic ...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Or even internally autonomous but confederated for purposes of foreign policy and defense.

North and South are really two different cultures.

Not just the North and South.

Arguments can be made about the differences in culture between those two segments and the Mid-East, Mid-West, and the West Coast.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't know how friendly the two states would have been. The South was still very expansionist. There would have been more then a few points of contention(West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arizona Territory.....)

The US would have looked north to make away for the losses. State of Ontario anyone?

You may have a point.

Look how "friendly" they were in 1861 when united! :doh

When we bemoan the cultural discord today, maybe we too easily forget what *real* discord looked like!

 

[Goshin]

Not just the North and South.

Arguments can be made about the differences in culture between those two segments and the Mid-East, Mid-West, and the West Coast.

True. Perhaps we need to partition the US into five internally-autonomous "states". We might actually get on better that way... and you can still vote with your feet.

 

[Tigerace117]

You may have a point.

Look how "friendly" they were in 1861 when united! :doh

When we bemoan the cultural discord today, maybe we too easily forget what *real* discord looked like!

Very true. For all the complaints about conservatives and liberals, at least their not shooting at each other.

 

[Captain Adverse]

True. Perhaps we need to partition the US into five internally-autonomous "states". We might actually get on better that way... and you can still vote with your feet.

As long as we don't forget all the Native tribal "autonomous" states, Puerto Rico, and all the other remaining territories...not to mention Hawaii.

 

[Chomsky]

Very true. For all the complaints about conservatives and liberals, at least their not shooting at each other

Well, at least not under the guise of belligerent parties!

 

[Chomsky]

Not just the North and South.

Arguments can be made about the differences in culture between those two segments and the Mid-East, Mid-West, and the West Coast.

True. Perhaps we need to partition the US into five internally-autonomous "states". We might actually get on better that way... and you can still vote with your feet.

There was a popular book speaking to this - but dayem if I can remember it's name!

 

[Tigerace117]

Well, at least not under the guise of belligerent parties!

True that :mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

There was a popular book speaking to this - but dayem if I can remember it's name!

May not have been the one you mean, but Heinlein's Friday was set in a hypothetical balkanized future USA.

 

[Chomsky]

May not have been the one you mean, but Heinlein's Friday was set in a hypothetical balkanized future USA.

Thanks, but this was a statistical and cultural study. I'm sure it's buried deep in my (way too large) Amazon wishlist somewhere!

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's basically what most American secessionist movements are.

Well, the first one was centered around the ability to own other human beings. Nowadays, it seems to be based on partisanship.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Perhaps we should make an exception for California.

Bring back the Bear Flag Republic! California could do very well going it alone. Texas would like to see it go, too, as there would be two fewer Democrats in the Senate.

 

[DA60]

Imo, any state should be allowed to leave if a majority of it's voting citizens want to.

Not just a simple majority of those that actually voted...but a majority of all eligible voters must have voted to leave.

I personally think 50%+1 is enough. Though I am open to a higher number like 60% or maybe 66.7% at most.


Either way, it is none of the rest of the countries business. If a state wants to leave (and enough of it's citizens vote to leave), they should be able to leave..period.

The idea of forcing state's to stay in the union against their will is ridiculous.

 

[iguanaman]

There are two ways one or more of our states can leave the union - revolution and amending the Constitution specifically to allow secession.

Or you nutters can just leave and start your own country. That is more practical for the 1% or less that want to succeed.

 

[iguanaman]

Imo, any state should be allowed to leave if a majority of it's voting citizens want to.

Not just a simple majority of those that actually voted...but a majority of all eligible voters must have voted to leave.

I personally think 50%+1 is enough. Though I am open to a higher number like 60% or maybe 66.7% at most.


Either way, it is none of the rest of the countries business. If a state wants to leave (and enough of it's citizens vote to leave), they should be able to leave..period.

The idea of forcing state's to stay in the union against their will is ridiculous.

Let me get this straight. The founders were so mistrusting of the peoples ability to vote wisely that they installed the electoral college but somehow a State leaving the union should now be trusted to the people? And that is what the founders would have wanted?

 

[Objective Voice]

well, I belive there should be a legal mechanism to peacefully and equitably disassociate with a union a State no longer wants to be a part of ... but then again, I don't really see self determination as a bad thing... i kinda like the idea of choosing your own government instead of being forced to be a subject of one you are opposed to.

There's a remedy for that: 1 man, 1 vote at all levels of government.

Don't like how things are with one duly elected official - mayor, sheriff, state legislator, Congressman, Senator, Governor, President - or the entire elected body, exercise your Constitutional right to vote and butt him or her (OR as many of the dead-beats as you can) out of office. Of course, there's also the added responsibility of the voting public to take part in the democratic process by exercising your 1st Amendment right to peacefully protest against those things you firmly believe government isn't doing right or assemble for those things you agree with. In short, don't stand on the sidelines watching things happen and say nothing/do nothing. Get fully involved!

Sidenote: Not pointing a finger at you directly...just saying if you don't like how your duly elected government is acting, be a full-throated participant in the democratic process and ultimately vote to change it. This secession threat is just one state's way of throwing a temper tantrum....not gonna happen.

 

[Objective Voice]

I'll not add to the good opinions below on the Texas secession specifically, but will opine that with all the bitter divide that still often occurs between those above & below the Mason Dixon Line, that perhaps we all might have been happier if we let the break of 1861 result in two autonomous but friendly countries?

No. Our nation would have been made weaker by such secessionist action. Lincoln was right to fight to keep this country united even if said fight went against the common wisdom of the day. We'd be just as wrong to allow it today.