Skip to comments.Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?
Posted on 10/17/2013 8:45:51 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Governor Rick Perry was once alleged to have stated that Texas could secede in the future. But he now states he opposes succession:
If the different states were to become different nations, the federal government would cease to exist. That means that the federal debt would be reduced to Zero. But the price that Americans would pay, would be the loss of super power status. Would Americans be better off or worse off, if the states were to become different countries?
If an individual state was to seceed, or one state here and one state there.....
Look for the USA to break-up down the road.
You mean idealistic patriotic citizen foot soldiers for largess in the North willing to go fight somebody with a gun? Let me stop laughing about that for a minute......I’ll get back to you
Secession is legal, if the consent of the other states is gained and expressed through amendment or through Congress.
Absent that it is not secession but rather insurrection, and I have no doubt that the mismatch between US military power and any insurrection would be greater now than in 1865.
NE states will never agree to the land and oil rich states leaving and taking their assets with them.
The US government is so over-burdened with debt, size, and ideology, it is frozen in amber. Radical change would simply mean collapse.
I honestly don't think they could even if they wanted to, in this day and age where everybody can take and send video. They first couple times a video leaked of them shelling a school and killing women and children (either by accident or intentionally) there would be a huge backlash not only in the world community by even in the "northern" states they rely on to support the war to end the hostilities and negotiate.
Not only that, but a Civil War II would look nothing like 1861 to 1865 with nice orderly lines of uniformed soldiers marching around, it would look more like the Libyan/Syrian Civil war or even the Iraqi Insurgency, where the combatants can ambush a convoy or base and then blend in with the populace.
No. If that happened, Washington would use nukes against the rogue states.
I see a constitutional convention which disbands the union and reforms it with a less liberal states.
That may be, or may not be, depending on the terms, but the legal requirement is for significant agreement, by enough to get 3/4 of the states for an amendment, or 2/3rds to get a treaty ratified by the Senate.
Simi Valley attempted so separate from the city of Los Angeles a few years ago. The ballot measure agreed that Simi Valley would pay $680 million to Los Angeles in the first few years after the separation.
It was voted down, but was close.
That may show the way to a deal, or it may show that the people considering secession just don’t want it bad enough.
The loss of being a Superpower is no longer a great loss.
3 more years of Obama and we will no longer be a Superpower, if indeed we are still one now.
A military filled with Combat women and queers and finances cut to the bone, dependent on technology to exist.
>>>I have no doubt that the mismatch between US military power and any insurrection would be greater now than in 1865
That may be true. But can the federal government get away with large-scale killing of people in the television, mobile phone, and youtube era?
I would hope that the fools supporting insurrection would not shell school, but they certainly are hotbeds of liberal indoctrination. Certainly the crazy people are more likely to do crazy things than people who are not crazy.
And any credit rating. If the U.S. dissolves and repudiates the existing debt then there is little chance that the new entities will be able to borrow anywhere, even within its own borders.
I wish there were a movement to seccession. I would leave this rathole of a state and join it.
If you can’t win an election, you can’t get a good result from a convention.
We are talking about plans to achieve better things for our children right, not just another temper tantrum?
Go back to school and attend all of those math classes you skipped.
I try to avoid loaning money to deadbeats, myself.
This is a fantasy scenario. Interesting conversation, but secession is not going to happen.
To headline: yes
One thing about the left, it’s engrained in their ideology to absolutely crush/kill/exterminate anyone that resists or tries to escape the effects of leftism.
If the union were to break up, the federal debt would not be reduced to zero as those who hold paper on US debt would still want their money and no credit would be extended to the new nations.
Their only option would be to print a worthless currency that would be subject to hyperinflation the moment it was printed.
By original design, each state was supposed to be as like its own “country” with the federal bond of the republic only to have impact on a few issues such as common defence, trade, you know, stuff actually listed in the Constitution.
“: would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?”
Yes, but from where would they draw the soldiers and materials? The north no longer has the men, money, and machines it had in 1861.
“No. If that happened, Washington would use nukes against the rogue states. “
Washington does not have total control over nukes. It doesn’t work that way.
The populations are too mixed these days anyway.
A few ignorant blowhards who declare people from above or below a certain latitude to be the enemy destroy any hope of success right from the start.
If a state were to arm itself with nuclear weapons and then tell the people of the cities of Boston and New York City that they're the first order of business in any war to prevent secession...then I expect the liberal statists to cave instantly.
Heres the thing, there will be no CWII
If the world and investors believed that a state (or states) was potentially going to secede from the Union and the United States could actually break up, the economy and the dollar would collapse so fast that panic would ensue and city Liberals will turn on each other and burn their own cities down
There would be so much chaos that Obama or Hillary or whomever wouldnt have the ability to stop the secession.
Though secession might be pointless after that as there will be so much bloodshed, Liberals would have thinned much of their population out. Rural Conservatives meanwhile would have just passed the popcorn and waited it out and can come back in and pick up the pieces.
Your post is correct....and profoundly depressing....
A breakup of The United States would be more complex than individual states going their own way. Urban vs rural vs suburbs, liberal regions vs conservative, etc. A large state like Texas with the resources to operate without Washington could pull it off, and could lead other like minded states with it. States where the divide between the democrat controlled cities and conservative hinterlands is greater would have a big problem going it alone.
“I would leave this rathole of a state and join it.”
Is it the entire State or just the cities? I usually find ratholes are just that, holes in the States we know as cities.
Reps folded to gain favor with the media and moderates, they should know from years of experience that they will get none.
Note that in Syria the Al Queda terrorists set off a poison gas bomb or two, and blamed it on the Syrian government forces.
That ambiguity in responsibility will be in play in any insurrection. What is not ambiguous is the illegal nature of violent insurrection.
Even Texas would have to wall off Austin, Houston, and plan on mass murder behind its lines. When people propose insurrection, you should know that is their intent.
I guess you also note that a successful insurrection would require mass murder.
Keep in mind that oppressive taxation is less evil than mass murder.
I beg to differ. The president does have total control, and people in the chain of command are constantly vetted for their readiness to follow his orders.
I'm in Louisiana .I and others here are talking about how to do it
some of us are here:
You are right. However, the big nation states are collapsing and smaller and smaller groups of people are able to use force effectively. Check out the book, The Sovereign Individual by Davidson and Rees-Mogg. It was written a few years ago, but it predicts the break-up of countries and a chaotic future, at least for a while.
They say new or new versions of older political organization will arise. We may see the return of city-states. It’s an interesting book.
What ever did happen to that nuke that disappeared from inventory last month anyway?
It was illegal for Soviet citizens to violently overthrow the USSR in 1991. I take it you opposed that revolution?
Yes, the ticks will hold onto their hosts as long as they can.
“The president does have total control, and people in the chain of command are constantly vetted for their readiness to follow his orders.”
Nope. The president entering codes into his little box does not launch nukes. You’ve watched to many movies and, as usual on FR, you’re talking out your ass.
You’re really not fit to be here with your hatred of the south.
No idea. I don’t have it. Honest.
The US has a different basis of law than USSR and a different history that doesn’t justify violent insurrection.
I know nothing about it.
The problems is, as always, who goes first?
If anything like this is going to take place, I think that individual key states, which means the governors, are going to have to conference and war-game the scenarios.
You know for sure that the Feds are war-gaming these things everyday.
Perhaps it would help if citizens make their state reps know at which point Federal action, such as martial law, is absolutely unacceptable.
The president entering codes sends orders. The people to whom the orders are sent are vetted to be the kind of person who would follow those orders. If they don’t follow orders in an exercise, they are removed from that position, and replaced with someone who will follow orders.