I'm in Louisiana .I and others here are talking about how to do it
some of us are here:
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.
Ummm. It think that was the bulk of the idea behing an association of Soverign States as I recall. The Founders' aim was the best of both worlds.
With the exception of a few delegated powers enumerated, the States were more like Independent nations that entered into a treaty.
But each of the confederates retains an entire liberty of exercising as it thinks proper, those parts of the sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the treaty of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. And of this nature is the American confederacy, in which each state has resigned the exercise of certain parts of the supreme civil power which they possessed before (except in common with the other states included in the confederacy) reserving to themselves all their former powers, which are not delegated to the United States by the common bond of union.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States [1803] Section XII
-----
They now most of the States are servants of the administrative, or 'federal' organ, and the People are forced to go along for the ride.
Right. Massive default. Great answer.
Wait 'till the Chinese repo men get here. See what you get from them.
I don't think a break-up is in the cards, but it's nice to see that if it does it will be accompanied by all the same stupid bravado as it was in 1861.
It's reassuring and heartwarming to know that people can't sit down and resolve their differences civilly in a peaceful and cooperative way, and that human nature hasn't changed in a short century and a half.
The $17 trillion debt holders and $160 trillion liability recipients say no way.
If New York became it’s own country we would be something like Bangladesh.
The next civil war won’t be a battle between states, it will be battles between Urban and Rural areas all over the country.
Now that you mention it, probably not, because much of what's left would be liberal whacko-ville Code Pink types that can't "stomach" the thought of war.
Imagine that Texas left the Union. They might renounce the debt, they would also forfeit Social Security, military pensions, Medicare for old people, etc. Maybe most people would be ok with this, but I suspect (for example) a lot of retired military guys would not be happy with it. Texas could of course choose to replace their mission pensions with State of Texas pensions, but the question would be "where does that end".
So, it's not so simple as you postulate.
As it is, it’s too big.
Perhaps it could separate into independent countries (which would consist of groups of states).
California is already part of Mexico again.
I would argue that the time for secession has passed. The only way left open is rebellion and revolution. And we are talking French Revolution, NOT American Revolution.
What would be the compelling reason to keep them around? No offense, but there is not a “slavery” issue that would rally a majority in the north.
We can barely get people to Vote. Do you really think they could get northern men whipped up about anything enough to take up arms and march south? They would be dead in a week.
We could probably whip up and pretty darned good video war.
I hope not. I pray not.
Then again, Mick Jagger wrote...
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time...you just might find, you get what you need."
5.56mm
In the last election, no candidate got as much as 70% of the vote in any state (aside from DC, Hawaii and Utah). Apart from Alabama, Arkansas, and (very narrowly) Tennessee, every southern state gave Obama at least 40% of the vote.
This suggests that secession isn't a real possibility, or if it is it would be a very messy and bloody thing even before the federal government got involved. Talk about throwing out or forcing out people who don't share the new country's prevailing ideology often comes up at some point in the discussion, and that could be very messy and bloody indeed.
Moreover there's no guarantee that the current political situation would prevail. Deprived of Washington DC as an easy target or focus, enough of the majority vote (Republican) would move towards the other party (Democrat) to tip the balance in their favor.
The future historian Robert Heinlein wrote on this years ago.
He predicted a shism that set apart the south and the northeast. I think Texas was included in the south. There was a great swath in the middle and north. Out west, California was split, inland and coastal. The coastal cities of Oregon and Washington were a part of the California coastal amalgam.
As I recall there were 5 divisions but neither Alaska or Hawaii were included.
My thoughts are that he pretty much got it right. Following his lead I have called not for secession, but for purge. I am specially drawn to the concept of purging all of New York and every thing north and east. Northern New Jersey and Wilmington might be added. These states are NeoEuropa, loyalists to the home countries. They have degenerated beyond salvation but can’t see it.
As far as California goes, I expect the big quake to take either LA or San Francisco out of being. With either gone, California might right its self.
Don't' secede. Expel the traitorous states that voted for someone who vehemently opposes the Constitution of the United States.
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.