# Is secession still worth opposing with armed force today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2015, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773 "2015-03-23T14:33:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773/61 "2015-04-01T20:03:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Was secession worth fighting with force in the 1860s? If so, why wouldn’t it be worth fighting in the 2000s? Because we don’t have slavery anymore. Our nation lived with slavery for almost a century because the anti-slavery states abided by the constitution and lived with slavery because the constitution set up rules and as long as the slave state4s had the majority, we were a slave nation. When the tide turned and it looked like we would be able to abolish slavery, the slave states decided they didn’t like the rules anymore. If after much effort on the part of some states, we were on the verge of a constitutional amendment that banned abortions past the second trimester and California suddenly decided, they didn’t like the rules anymore, then we might fight with force. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773/62 "2015-04-01T20:09:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because we don’t have slavery anymore. > > Our nation lived with slavery for almost a century because the anti-slavery states abided by the constitution and lived with slavery because the constitution set up rules and as long as the slave state4s had the majority, we were a slave nation. When the tide turned and it looked like we would be able to abolish slavery, the slave states decided they didn’t like the rules anymore. > > If after much effort on the part of some states, we were on the verge of a constitutional amendment that banned abortions past the second trimester and California suddenly decided, they didn’t like the rules anymore, then we might fight with force. Is the “we” here California or the rest of the states? Frankly, if California wanted to leave, I’d shrug and say, “ok, go ahead”, just like I expect most Californians would say if Texas decided to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773/63 "2015-04-01T20:15:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t see any states that are even remotely serious about secession, so what we’re talking about is fantasyland. Sort of like if I said, “if our next president turns out to be an illegal alien and refuses to step down when impeached and removed from office, I’d fight him too”. Never going to happen. > > ETA: I am a bit curious though, do Canada or the UK have treason laws? And do you think the Scots or Quebecians(?) that supported secession were treasonous? It’s one thing to say that you support Texan independence (for example) as a Texan. It’s quite another to say you’d move to a state agitating for independence to join the struggle. Anyway, Scotland and Quebec (mostly) have peaceful secessionist movements operating within the framework of democratic governments. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773/64 "2015-04-01T22:07:47Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > What’s missing from your discussion is the fact that the US does not exist in a vacuum. We would have international players to consider. History teaches us that when there is a dispute in a country, other countries want to step in an pick sides, offer support, arms, troops, etc. - in order to fight proxy wars against their perceived opponents. Right. Lincoln’s great fear was that if the Union broke up, the European powers would start forming alliances with this or that American state and the states would find themselves embroiled in proxy wars. Not an unfounded fear, France was running a puppet-regime in Mexico at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773/65 "2015-04-02T00:40:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Right. Lincoln’s great fear was that if the Union broke up, the European powers would start forming alliances with this or that American state and the states would find themselves embroiled in proxy wars. Not an unfounded fear, France was running a puppet-regime in Mexico at the time. I don’t think that’s quite right (although if you have a cite I’d love to see it). My understanding is that Lincoln’s great fear was that if the secession was successful then no democracy would be able to stand as every state (general “state”, not US state) would break up into (potentially warring) factions over every difference; in the end democracy fails. Certainly the alliances you refer to were a fear but they were a symptom, not the cause. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-still-worth-opposing-with-armed-force-today/715773.md?page=3)