Obviously a Communist Plot to break up the United States!
They are obviously Communist frogs.
Here is some good news for the people in Texas that want to secede. The Foreign Ministry of Belarus has issued a report of countries that they believe are violating the human rights of their citizens and they feel that the US government is doing that by ignoring the states that submitted online petitions to secede. They make special mention that Texas had 125,000 people sign the petition, some of them might have been Texans, but it has so far been ignored be the administration.
Belarus! Now if the sesesh Texans can only get Cuba and NK to line up with that, they can’t fail! 
Apparently in whacko-land and Belarus, “ignored by the administration” is code for “the administration responded months ago.” (Spoiler: they said “No.”)
For what?
I’m not snarking; I cannot think of any state that the Union of the other 49 absolutely needs. California and New York would come closest IMO. Several other states being missing would cause some inconvenience, including Texas, but the country would survive comfortably without any one of them. You may be thinking of something I’ve missed, so I’d really like to know what you meant.
The Eyes of Belarus Are Upon You
That point about human rights is something I’ve wondered about. Here in the U.S. we basically settled the secession issue with a lot of dead bodies. It gets mentioned every once and awhile, and it’s almost always taken as a joke. Even in Texas if there was an actual vote on secession I’d wager less than 5% of the voters would actually vote to secede.
That being said, across Europe and other parts of the world there is a growing sentiment, evidenced by actions, that regions that wish to break off and form independent States have a sort of inherent right to do so. Canadians have mixed feelings about Quebec, but they allowed them to hold the vote–and Quebec has much longer ties with Canada than say, Arizona or Alaska or Hawaii.
So too Scotland and the United Kingdom.
This thread probably isn’t the right place to discuss it, but it is worth asking: “If a State truly wanted to secede, would it be moral to stop them? If yes, then why would it be immoral for Britain to stop Scotland or Canada to stop Quebec?”
Generally speaking, the fewer independent states there are in the world, the better. Provinces (usually) do not go to war with each other.
I’m in agreement on that, I’m a strong believer in the concept that every little pissant region of the world doesn’t need absolute autonomy in order to be treated equitably or fairly in the world. I’m not British and don’t have any special affinity for the United Kingdom, but I’m opposed to Scottish independence–likewise with Canada and Quebec. For the reasons you’ve outlined and others.
But the point stands that in much of the rest of the OECD at least, there is a general understanding that sub-national regions that want to break away should be given the chance to do so. Even the Spanish have had to make concession on semi-autonomy for certain areas, and even sillier concepts like Venice breaking away from Italy have to at least be entertained and considered in these States. I like that it’s fodder for Conan O’Brien whenever Vermont or Texas talks secession, but the point remains much of the world takes the position that it’s some sort of inalienable right for some nucleus of people in a region to be allowed to advocate for and eventually attain a break from the larger State.
Would it be wrong for the United Kingdom to simply tell Scotland: “No, you cannot leave, and we’ll use military force to stop you?” I think not, personally. Same for the Quebecois and Canada. But that’s obviously not the view there, but it’s a view that goes without question in the United States.
Isn’t it the case that there is a defined, formal, legal pathway for disassociation in those and the other countries you mention, while there isn’t one in the U.S.? (I’m seriously asking. I believe it’s true, but I’m not sure of every one.) If so, there is a clear distinction, legally, morally, and politically.
Some have held that, since Congress can admit new States, they might also have the power to permit states to secede.
(But…wouldn’t that imply that Congress could also eject states? Nasty possibility…)
If there exists a blanket right to secede, then nations cannot exist. The existence of nations depends on the possibility of enforcement of laws, and the enforcement of laws is impossible if anyone who disagrees with the laws can just declare themselves outside of those laws. For this reason, even the CSA refused to recognize the existence of a right to secede.
Well, tell you what. Once a State has 51% of it’s citizens ask to leave then Congress should consider it. But I am not sure if any State even has 1% so far, certainly not 10%.
So, no State wants to leave the Union, just a few nuts.
From John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley:
I don’t know about Canada - I remember the referendum in Quebec a few years ago that narrowly failed, but I am not sure if they had a plan on what to do had it succeeded - but I am pretty sure that the US Supreme Court ruled not long after the Civil War ended that the CSA states never “legally” left the United States as there was no provision for a state to secede. Whether or not a state can be thrown out of the Union by a law is another matter.
the one thing i couldn’t understand is how states could secede. Are they planning to print their own money? Why can’t the Fed Govt. distribute a standard printing maching so that the money matches in all states.so that all states have the same exact printing machine? whats the excuse folks?
My great aunt had some printed on the back of wall paper.
Wait, wait . . . Before we just let it go, let’s see what the Mexicans will pay for it.
Or how much they’ll charge us to take it. Still a bargain.