Secede? A poll

  • Secede
  • Don’t secede

0 voters

So, there’s been a bit of talk of secession on this forum, a lot more talk in other parts of the world, most notably the Texas house legislature chair who called for it after the scotus dismissal.. If this were to move forward:

What would this look like?

Is it a good idea?

Are they serious?

Is anyone here serious?

Pros/cons?

Raises a lot of questions.

1, Could it be a peaceful alternative to a violent civil war or the beginning of one?

  1. Maybe a India/Pakistan type: The left coast and New England versus everything else.

  2. How to split armed forces?

  3. Trade agreements? USMCA?

  4. Refugees from both states?

People are looking for a way out of our seemingly intractable polarization. I don’t have a solution but actual secession seems remote.

The left celebrates their sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. Perhaps we should take a page from history and adopt Nullification by the states to onerous regulations and statutes.
What’s good for the goose is good for he gander.

1 Like

I wish that we could have two countries. One for those of us who wish to live with freedom and capitalism, and another one for people like you, @Gene, for those who want communism.

That’s why I wish we could get rid of California which has given us Pelosi, the highly influential Gavin Newsome and soon to be President, Harris. All of them come from San Francisco, the most far left area of the country, and that sucks.

I doubt we’ll see an ACTUAL secession. What we probably WILL see, is a mass exodus from Blue States into Red States in order to turn them blue, too…then the utter destruction of our country from within…just like Kruschev predicted 60-odd years ago.

Yes, the thing that really bugs you are these people who move out of high tax states, like California, because “The taxes are killing me” and then vote in the same type of politicians who made California the hell hole it is.

The reason is the education system. It’s creating generations of socialists. This country will hell at the end of the next four years. The Democrats elites will open the borders so that they can be in power forever, live in their guarded and gated communities, let the rest of the population live like dogs.

I believe that all peoples should have a government, to the basic form and character of which, they have given their consent.

I do not believe current national boundaries – anyone’s – are sacred and should never be altered.

The Slovaks decided they did not want to be a minority ruled by the majority Czechs. They peacefully separated.

The Norweigans decided they did not want to be a minority ruled by the majority Swedes. They peacefully separated.

The United Kingdom has said that if the people of Scotland, or of Northern Ireland, wish to separate, they can.

I believe this is the right way to do things.

Yes … .there are many complexities and problems – who inherits what assets, and what debts. What about the minority in the would-be separatists’ area, who want to remain? And some considerations from realpolitik: if you separate and then invite your the military of your former rulers’ worst enemy onto your soil, beware!

Nonetheless, the principle is sound. If Hawai’i wants to leave – if the majority there, after demonstrating their settled desire to separate, and in sufficient numbers , want to regain their status as a sovereign nation, then let them.

Often such separations are accompanied by terrible bloodshed and mass forced population transfers: Yugoslavia, probably Northern Ireland in a few years, numerous examples in Central/Eastern Europe, India/Pakistan, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (failed, for the moment), Burma (failed, for the moment), China/Tibet (failed, for the moment), Russia/Chechnaya (failed, for the moment), Russia/Ukraine [succeed in Crimea, ongoing in Eastern Ukraine].

But Americans should agree in principle: if the great majority of people in some cohesive region [it doesn’t have to match state boundaries] – say, 70% – as a matter of their settled desire – say, if they vote this way twice in succession in referenda in which at least 50% of the population vote – want to secede from the Union – taking on a fair share of the national debt, returning or buying Federal property in their state, generously compensating/aiding those who wish to leave to continue living in the old Motherland, doing nothing that would endanger the security of the country they are leaving [no Chinese military bases] – then why should they not be allowed to?

Government by the consent of the governed.

Note that recognizing the RIGHT of self-determination – the right to separate – doesn’t mean advocating it in any particular case, anymore than being for the right to divorce means that you are for everyone getting divorced.

The concept of economy of scale applies to national unions, as well as the strength that comes from unity: these are good arguments against making two where there was one. It shouldn’t be done lightly, or in haste.

But …becoming a sovereign power does not preclude close co operation with your former partner on many things – utilities, highways, trading relationships, military co operation: the Canadians and the Americans set a good example in all kinds of ways, and a third democratic power on the North American continent would want to follow their example.

Government by the consent of the governed.

I don’t think any of these secession movements is going anywhere (except maybe Alberta). If Texas actually did secede I’m moving there. If I lived there and it made it to the ballot would I vote for it? YES

No, vote with your feet. Millions did it in the India/Pakistan split.

I don’t agree with 70%, an almost impossible threshold, 50% should do.

No, sovereignty means no unilateral veto power by either notion.

Military personnel should be given the option to choose.

If Hawai’i wanted to secede – which it doesn’t because immigration has smothered the indigenous population – it would be very very wise of their leadership to promise the US that it could continue to have naval bases there, indefinitely. And that should the US choose to leave, the Hawai’ian government would never ever entertain the idea of Chinese naval bases. A violation of sovereignty? Yes. Common sense? Yes.

Ireland is a good example of principle vs commonsense and compromise.

After a nasty little war in the early 20s, the British agreed to let the 26 Catholic-majority counties of Ireland have some sort of self-rule: they would become a ‘Free State’ within the Commonwealth. The hard core of the Irish nationalists refused this … the ‘soft core’ accepted it, as, as DeValera put it, ‘not freedom, but the freedom to gain freedom.’ These two factions then fought a really bitter civil war, with the ‘soft core’ winning and eventually becoming the government of Ireland. Then the losing faction, forming a political party, won power through elections a few years laer. Sure enough, a few years after that, they moved towards full independence and unilaterally left the Commonwealth in 1949.

So if there were some sort of move towards separation of a part of the United States, I would hope that its leaders were moderate and sensible and inclined towards making the compromises necessary to mollify the people they were leaving.

Just because you have the abstract right to do something, doesn’t mean you should do it. As events were leading up to the American colonies declaring their independence from Britain, the great conservative thinker Edmund Burke, in that country’s Parliament, stated “The question with me is, not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them happy.”

It would be in the interests of the people leading a seccessionist movement to make the leaders of the people they were seceeding from, as ‘happy’ as possible.