That’s because the example you gave (”If you actually try to leave, the president will invade and decimate your economy for decades.”) appear to be a reference to the civil war, with you whining about the southern states getting their butts kicked and they decided to start their own pro-slavery nation and attack Ft Sumter.
If you weren’t whining about the pro-slavery confederates getting slapped down, I apologize.
As I said, I’d be all for getting rid of Hawaii, and probably most of New England too (convince them to leave and join Canada). Let ‘em go!
Could call it whining :-)
The “neo-Confederate” ad hominen attack and the president-directed armed attack are two different things: one is related to what happens when you just discuss the issue, one is related to what might (I apologize - I should have stated it as a hypothetical) happen if you actually do it.
The problem is that most people close down genuine discussions of secession - they associate sovereign states wanting to leave the Union with slavery and the grave political and moral mistakes the Southern states made 150 years ago.
The problem is also that most people assume that the issue of state secession, which the Constitution does not address well (or at all) was solved by Lincoln’s destructive forces. And, if a state tries to leave without Federal approval, the people may accept force again.