OK, let's take that scenario for a moment. Say that California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Montana become totally opposed to the war in Iraq and announce tomorrow that they have seceded and established the Kingdom of Schwarzenegger. The seize all federal property in those states, all court houses, mints, national parks, dams, federal lands, and the like. They take over all the aircraft, arms and equipment at the army and air force bases and the bulk of the Pacific Fleet, politely allowing those servicemen to return to the United States, of course. They announce that they are not bound by NATO or SEATO or any other treaty and certainly aren't going to be sending any troops to Iraq any more. They also announce that as an independent country, the federal debt of the United States is the problem of the United States and they will have nothing to do with it. And finally, they announce that until they are sure of the United States' intentions no commercial aircraft can overfly the Kingdom of Schwarzenegger bound for places like Hawaii or Alaska and no cargoes destined for those areas will be allowed through. This last restriction is suspended a day or two later, but the threat of cut off remains.
So there is your scenario. The remaining United States, bound by treaties, saddled with a national debt, suddenly has about 25% fewer resources to maintain those commitments with. Plus a considerable part of the country can be cut off at will from access to the Pacific. Is that fair?
And what's the cost of retaking these states by force? Is it just to begin a war--costing millions of lives--simply because these states decided that the U.S. government was no longer functioning properly?
Being in the United States is important for all states, and I don't think that states would secede willy-nilly. However, again, I don't think that a country is justified in forcibly requiring a political subdivision to join (or remain a part of) a confederacy.
Yes, I think your scenario is a bad one for the remaining states, but along with a strong central government comes the burden of attempting to please 50 very different political subdivisions. This is the path we have chosen. We must be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Life in Los Angeles is starkly different than in North Dakota, and different things are important to these two very different groups of people. When the federal government was small and unintrusive, governing these two very different groups of people was less of a challenge, since the states were best equipped to deal with local problems. However, as the federal government begins to regulate more and more traditionally local activities, major problems are created.
If this continues, states are going to be unhappy. There will be groups that want out. Let's recognize that now.
Ok, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one and move on.
We'll meet again, I'm sure.