Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?

[ComtedeMaistre]

Governor Rick Perry was once alleged to have stated that Texas could secede in the future. But he now states he opposes succession:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/11/13/rick-perry-texas-secession-petition/1702359/

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?

[Still Thinking]

Could the Different States Become Separate Countries in the Future?

They're already supposed to be, to an extent. That's why they're called "states".

If the South was to secede again, would the federal government have the stomach to wage war like it did between 1861 to 1865?

Sure. They always have the stomach when the opponent is a good person who just wants to be left alone.

[Nowhere Man]

Right. Massive default. Great answer.

Wait 'till the Chinese repo men get here. See what you get from them.

Assuming such a scenario happens, would Red China trade Peking for Portland because I think the nukes would fly long before that. However, the other possibility is when the Red Chinese come over, hopefully behind each tree is a guy with an M1 Garand.

[bert]

———I am still looking for my “Friday”.-—

I have taken to rereading stuff I read 40 years ago. It has been a long tine since I read Friday.

I might just dig it up and read it over to get heinlein’s take correct and learn if applicable in the present context.

[Nowhere Man]

If I was like you, I could say that you are not fit to be here with your hatred of the country, but I think you do love much about the country. I don’t hate the south, though I think the past insurrection launched by the slave power in the distant past was incorrect, not justified, and illegal.

Really when you think about it, what is legal is determined by the winner and the ability to use force to impose its/their will. I would have sympathized and fought for the South if I was around then, I think they were right and the North was wrong, but the South did make some mistakes that cost them. First, they fired the first shots, bad move, like any schoolyard fight or even any war (with few exceptions), the first ones to shoot are seen as the bad guys. So the North had on their side already, "well, he started it," as they would explain it to the principal. Fort Sumter was the first boo-boo. However, there is always chance of recovery. If you do that, you have to be able to cash the checks you write. The South did a fairly good job at first but they lacked the industry the North had and most trade from the outside was blocked. They needed factories to make the munitions they needed and/or get them from elsewhere, both were lacking. Third, you need recognition from other, preferably, major nations. If the South was able to get the UK or the French on their side, especially the former, the North would have been toast and might have to come to the bargaining table. The South lacked that, so that was strike three.

Then in today's world, you have two additional equalizers. First, nukes. If the Civil War was anytime past 1950 and the South was able to score or make some nukes then it would have been game over, the North would have had to come to the table. Asymetrical Warfare is the other, make to too costly for the victor to hold onto you. Then again, that type of warfare is much easier with knowledge of 20th and 21st century science and the will to fight.

So in a way, might makes right, the South tried and lost so it is seen as illegal.

[Nowhere Man]

This can and should be done peacefully. A lib in Texas could exchange their house for one in Mass and funds made available to make the move. But if they don’t move, they would be considered persona non grata, would recieve no benefits, could not vote or hold arms, office or license.

That's a bit harsh, but I would just say that they would either have to live by the laws of where they are or move. I would in the latter, the only thing they'd get form the government is that it would buy up their property they cannot take or load until their car/truck and maybe a little extra for pain and suffering and use those funds as like their version of 40 acres and a mule in the liberal land and vice versa.

[x]

Some southern states have high percentages on food stamps, welfare, and SSI disability and high percentages of non-payers of income tax.

If the country breaks up we are out of the empire/worldpolice business, bases will close, and that will also affect the economy.

If you don't think a smart southern politician could make use of this to turn the 40-45% Democrat vote into 50-55%, you may have missed Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson.

Sure, you can get rid of the nanny libs and Yankee meddlers, but when the same programs get redefined in terms of simple neighborliness, what you get may not be so different than what we have now.

Maybe secession will bring about an economic boom and create jobs? Maybe, but don't count on it after a massive default on the US debt.

[x]

"Chinese repo men" was more a reference to the bad effects repudiating the national debt would have: nobody would loan any of us money. We'd lose a lot in prestige and reputation. The world economy would shift even more dramatically than it already has to other parts of the world. I don't think they'll be coming over to strip our assets, but the result of a default won't be pretty.

The whole idea of the US as a superpower, though, goes if the country breaks up. Afterwards, some part of the former USA is going to be Kazakhstan, and UN weapons inspectors may be coming over to dispose of the dangerous stray nukes that got left behind.

[Still Thinking]

That couldn’t have been Simi. Simi is actually in Ventura County rather than LA county so I don’t see how it could have ever been part of the city of LA.

[onedoug]

They sure gave the North hell for a few years. I hope you don’t think they were a pretended army too?

Some truly great commanders.

[Molon Labbie]

So, you continue to allow them to live among you, screwing up your lives with their liberal nonsense, sucking down your resources, like now?

We are close to civil war over our political and social ideologies and you think that you can convert these idiots?

It’s a shame that you cannot see that WE CANNOT LIVE TOGETHER. They are going to destroy this nation. All I propose is that they live in their part of the nation and destroy that, not all of it.

[Tammy8]

Elections can be rigged, it’s a little harder to rig a war.

The colonists had no legal way to remove King George III but they ended his power over them.

[donmeaker]

Simi Valley is an area in the northern end of the city of Los Angeles.

I know Simi well. I used to work at Point Mugu and the Camarillo Airport.

[donmeaker]

What is legal is determined by the law. When the slave power started their insurrection, they could have attempted secession by amendment, or even by federal legislation, but they didn’t have the votes. They had just lost an election for president and there was a Republican Speaker of the house. They couldn’t get their way politically. They could have filed a suit, to resolve their complaint legally, but they recognized they had no grounds. So they chose to illegally attempt an insurrection.

And the East India Company soon went out of

Which they lost.

The 1773 Tea Act exempted the British East India company from duties paid for importation to the colonies (money paid to the colonial government) and instead, they paid a tax to the English Parliament. The colonists were offended by the pretense (in violation of the Townshend Act) that England’s parliament where they were not represented, and could not be represented, was presuming to to tax their goods, and in every port except Boston, the tea was either not unloaded, or in Charleston SC the tea was unloaded and nooone would buy it. In Boston, the tea was going to be unloaded, as the attempt to boycott had been unsuccessful. To prevent the unloading, the “Tea Party” was staged. It was indeed a crime: vandalism, but the British response was illegal, to close the harbor to punish the entire city most of which had not been involved in the act. The British collective punishment failed because the colonial response was legal and effective: to send food for the city over land. There were no prosecutions of any persons for the Tea Party. England chose illegality. And the English lost too.

[donmeaker]

How many of them have you shot so far?

[donmeaker]

Rigging a war is the sole function of the military.

So tell me, what kind of military does the state of Texas have? How many Aircraft carriers have they fielded? How many tanks has the state of Texas bought recently?

Sounds to me you want to lose and lose big.

[donmeaker]

Certainly Thomas of Virginia and was a great commander.

To the extent that the armies of the insurrection were effective it was because they used American soldiers, American arms stolen from the United States, American tactics, with officers trained at the US military academy who violated their oaths of loyalty to the US. When Grant took Vickburg, he told his men to trade their Enfield rifles, imported from England for the superior Springfield muskets that the Confederates used. Of 300 major battles, West Point officers commanded one side in 5, and in the other 295, West Point officers commanded both sides.

The insurrection nearly immediately lost Tennessee, the source of most of the pork in their domestic trade, and a vital source of protein. Without that, the southern cause was doomed as their soldiers weakened from malnutrition.

In response to the loss of Tennessee, Davis directed that domestic fowl production be increased. It was, but that provided food for Union Armies to live off the countryside, permitting the campaigns against Vicksburg, and Georgia. Without the vulnerability of Union supply trains, Union Armies could penetrate the south at will, and did.

Hood was probably the worst general on both sides. He managed to destroy his army and to burn Atlanta, but Bragg, who lost a very strong position at Chattanoga while he kept a major reenforcement out of the action, probably gives him some competition.

[donmeaker]

I refer you to the separation in India and Pakistan for the pain, suffering, breakdown in order, and outright murders that may be expected from ‘peaceful secession’.

[donmeaker]

Certainly you are not asserting that the slave power, that wanted continued authority to rape, torture, and kidnap, were good people motivated by good intentions?

That the people who demanded that fugitive slaves in northern states be returned with the cooperation of Northern state official wanted to be left alone?

Gracious! What whoppers!

[onedoug]

Seems like a pretty good plan. When do we start?

[donmeaker]

Seems like a pretty rotten plan that resulted in over 750,000 American deaths last time, worse than WWII.

If you think of it as a good plan, I would ask: good for whom?