http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-15-states-file-petitions-to-secede-from-united-states
Does anyone find this worthy of discussion? I thought it might be slightly more than just "low content." I hope to hear what the official response is.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
IT'S HAPPENING
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Secession is definately good. I doubt it will happen, though. We've already seen America's response to secession back in the 1800s.
i wonder if us soldiers will kill fellow americans
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
"us soldiers?"
You're a soldier?
i meant U.S
United states
I was joking around, haha.
We'll see if the number of signatures increases in the next few weeks.
Great way for the Feds to build their "terrrist suspect" lists without moving a finger. Just adding a different angle for consideration.
SkepticalMetal: Secession is definately good. I doubt it will happen, though. We've already seen America's response to secession back in the 1800s.
They had the excuse of immoral activity though.
Think about it like this: would the US be ethical if it invaded a country to stop the institutionalized practice of slavery in that country and free those slaves?
The answer must be yes, clearly.
So, whether or not you or anyone reading this agree that that's what Lincoln was actually doing with the Civil war, slavery became pretext for war. Wars seem to need a pretext so that the intellectuals of a country can sell it to the citizens to manufacture consent and 'go along' for the war effort.
So, would the Fed have a pretext for war against seceding states?
I don't really see that it would. I could see them using the Supremacy Clause, but that would be pretty weak sauce. That would be akin to simply claiming the right to own someone, federal slavery of states.
Back then, I thought it was more evident to people that the war against the South had virtually nothing to do with slavery, and was all about "preserving the union." You put it in those terms, and the local rednecks will be supporting the anti-secession sentiment immediately. But I mean, Lysander Spooner even saw back then that the North's invasion of the South was all about keeping the Empire intact. They will come up with an excuse if they really want it in.
And how would a state go about getting out of the US, anyway? Would the state government people all agree to do that, or something?
slavery became pretext for war.
It was not a casus belli by any means, even officially. Lincoln and the US government never used slavery as a pretext for war, and the issue had nothing to do with the official line on the war until over a year into the war (and even then the use of abolition as a means of warfare was accepted begrudgingly). Lincoln's administration was won by the abolitionists, rather than the other way around, since the latter were able to convince the former that abolition would aid in the Union's victory.
Yes, the very same one they had before. Secession cannot be allowed.
Of course it won't happen. I would prefer to see a serious pilot project in a single State than half-hearted, fair-weather, purely-symbolic secession petitions across many states. One of the ideas I keep tossing around is for someone like Patri Friedman or Peter Thiel to go meet with the elders in a Native American tribe with coastal access (something that could be developed into an artificial harbor) and see about funding a full-on secession from Federal jurisdiction with the aim of creating a Hong Kong-like free economic zone (but the tribe would really have to buy into it, which is the difficult part... many of them would probably see it all as more trouble than it's worth). The history of the "treaties" and what-not is all so recent that serious legal challenges could be mounted. If you worked out the strategy right, you could put the Feds in a position where it's in their interests to just let one little sliver of land go than endanger the rest of the BS arrangements they've put in place with the other tribes.
Clayton -
What about a full-blown Indiginous Revolution, with them saying that all Americans must be deported back to Europe? My Dad and I have often discussed how due to property rights, the Natives could kick us out.
^
No they couldn't. They no longer own the land anymore than I own whatever area my people inhabited which they were kicked out of hundreds of years ago... Don't know when that happened, but I'm pretty damn sure that it happened at some point. Even if you buy into that, who exactly owns what pieces of land? A people cannot own a land, and the chances are that most people in America have a tiny bit of Native American in them.
And I don't want to get into the issue much here, but don't think that the matter of secession with the south was at all straightforward. It did have at least some of its roots in the matter of slavery.
Who was talking about the causes of the secession of the South? We were talking about the pretext for war, which was simply that the South had dared to defy the federal government, and taken a huge amount of federal government revenue with them!
@ Neodoxy
...And you got on my case for taking what you said about being a Marxist seriously.
@Aristippus
SkepticalMetal:Back then, I thought it was more evident to people that the war against the South had virtually nothing to do with slavery,
@SM
Sorry...
And it's Neodox Socialist Marxist Sleeper Cell... BTW
Exactly. He was talking about the war, not the secession.
Well I also thought that the secession practically revolved around the South believing that the North had boosted it's governmental powers to the point of tyranny. I'm pretty sure that if the USA would have let the CSA go their seperate way, the CSA would eventually modernize to the point where they would have to abolish slavery. In fact, slavery was Lincoln's tool to get Europe to quit trading with the CSA, so eventually the CSA would have had to live up to that if the Federals left the South alone.
While Secession did not end well at all during the 1800, I'm not sure the same response would be given a second time around. Of course the myth taught in public schools revolves around how the south seceded over slavery, this time around no such excuse exist. I doubt the even the eo-cons would want such a bloody struggle within our own door steps against our own neighbors. Then there is probably the issues of nuclear weapons of which silos are spread out through the country.
I remember about two years ago about some secessionist party that was semi-taken seriously I think in the state of Oregon. Although my own bias is in favor strongly of secession, for some reason I can't shake of the odd linering feeling that I've had for some time tha secession might actually happen again.
You guys make some good points.
Well, how rightist is the military generally? Overwhelmingly? They might refuse to attack states trying to secede if that's where their sympathies lie, then you'd end up with a severe crisis.
In fact, slavery was Lincoln's tool to get Europe to quit trading with the CSA, so eventually the CSA would have had to live up to that if the Federals left the South alone.
That was a part of it, but I think the main purpose of the claims of abolition was as an ultimatum to the CSA: the USA told them that if they surrendered by a certain date, they could rejoin the Union and keep their slaves, but if they failed to do so, the Union would consider their slaves freed (though the slaves in the Union would remain as such), and uphold that freedom should the Union be victorious in the war. So the Emancipation Proclamation was really an attempt to end the war at that point, with a Union victory. I'm sure that Lincoln was extremely disappointed that not only did his threat fail in its task of CSA surrender, but that he also had to carry through on the threat, and consider the slaves freed during the war (but who knows if he would have done so post bellum, had he lived).
EDIT:
I don't think it would come anywhere near military action. The establishment propaganda would completely discredit and destroy any secession movement.
I don't know how secession would end up, I really don't. Remember, the side affects of secession could make the result worse than would the total retention of the union.
I think that the question of exactly what the military would do, and what would happen to nuclear weapons, are both very good questions. I think in large part it depends on exactly how widely, and to what extent, secession is supported within the seceding states.
That was certainly a reason, but it's also hard to deny that slavery was a part of that... Especially because one could argue that the Union abolishing slavery would have been a form of tyranny. This is regardless of what would have happened to the confederacy if it had been left alone. Slavery was a dying institution even when the war took place.
Hmm. Well then, I'd compare Lincoln's "War on Slavery" to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. knew that slavery was dying (and would die naturally) just like they knew that Japan would surrender, but they still wanted to use the bombs.
Sorry, but when talking about the bad things that the state has done, it's impossible to stay on one sub-topic of that.
if we cant get 60 percent of a state to vote for anything, how would we expect 60 percent to vote for secession or 50 plus 1?
If, let's say, people of Florida ever come close to supporting secession, a false-flag attack on their beaches by some "rogue army" or "terrorists", barely prevented by the brave federal forces, will quickly change that.
Aristippus: In fact, slavery was Lincoln's tool to get Europe to quit trading with the CSA, so eventually the CSA would have had to live up to that if the Federals left the South alone. That was a part of it, but I think the main purpose of the claims of abolition was as an ultimatum to the CSA: the USA told them that if they surrendered by a certain date, they could rejoin the Union and keep their slaves, but if they failed to do so, the Union would consider their slaves freed (though the slaves in the Union would remain as such), and uphold that freedom should the Union be victorious in the war. So the Emancipation Proclamation was really an attempt to end the war at that point, with a Union victory. I'm sure that Lincoln was extremely disappointed that not only did his threat fail in its task of CSA surrender, but that he also had to carry through on the threat, and consider the slaves freed during the war (but who knows if he would have done so post bellum, had he lived). EDIT: Well, how rightist is the military generally? Overwhelmingly? They might refuse to attack states trying to secede if that's where their sympathies lie, then you'd end up with a severe crisis. I don't think it would come anywhere near military action. The establishment propaganda would completely discredit and destroy any secession movement.
Could you post some of the sources you use? Just wondering.
While not nearly on the same level, more than 50 percent plus one voted to regulate marijuana, or decriminalize it, or legalize gay marriage, or all sorts of things throughout history. It just depends upon the popular sentiment at the time.
For it to matter, Texas would have to be included in the seceding states and take the lead. If done properly, one could make the case for attacking the seceding states very unpopular.
the 50 plus 1 for marajuana was with about 60% voter turnout. not sure if secession would mean there could just be 60% turnout or if 100% would have to vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOUdwyag1vI
Try the Emancipation Proclamation. It was issued on September 22nd 1862, to apply only to slaves living in states rebelling against the US government on January 1st 1863.
Petitions now in 20 states. Ha.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20_states_petition_to_secede_from_us_following_obama_victory_20121112/
The South will rise again! I say let it come. It's about time.
I see New York is on that list. Hoorah! Although I shudder at the thought of what kind of state government my fellow New Yorkers might dream up. Could end up being the Union of New York Socialist Counties.
Has anybody read any of those comments from the link in the first post? Divide et impera.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/the-petition-to-let-texas-secede-from-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/
? What kind of statement would the White House give" "Uhhh, no." ?? Doesn't this seem kind of asinine?
Just watch now as the state-allied intelligentsia goes to work, first with the media, whom will poo-poo and ridicule the effort if they cannot ignore, or perhaps brand it a racist movement, and then from the intellectuals who will declare it unconstitutional and thus not worth thinking about.
If a state actually tried it, they'd be probably sued first by the feds, where it would eventually go to the Supreme Court, who would undoubtedly kick the effort in the teeth and say states cannot secede. As they must.
So, there's the next 5 - 10 years laid out for you, should a secession effort ever gather steam, which is unlikely in the first place.
That could lead to a much larger long-term secessionist movement ultimately, but the cultural division between fed and state would have to become much stronger, and that could take a generation.
At that point, with such a cultural change, you could envision a USSR-style walk away from the Fed by the state governors, splitting the US into three major parts, the Noreast, the middle reds, and the west-coast.
It's hard to say if that would be more likely than outright civil war. Probably any president in office would not want to be the guy who let the union dissolve on his watch, presidents are bastards like that, so perhaps war is inevitable.
But it would have to be because of going off the fiscal cliff one too many times and severe depression and inflation and a dozen other pressures, and it won't be libertarians running the opposition either, so we can't expect events to redound to our favor really :\
So, again I conclude, onward to a seastead.
if the states leave, then attack the federal government like in the civil war, then the usa will respond. the federal government would need to be able to remove it's property from the seceeded states, and the federal government would retain the land it owns inside states so the secceded states would need to form themselves around the territory that is state owned and not federaly owned. a state does not get to leave and keep federal property.