# Secession **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 27, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482 "2016-06-27T00:36:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/41 "2016-06-27T03:59:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You seem to feel there is a binary split in this country. On one side are all the rural people, all the religious people, and all the conservatives. On the other side are all the urban people, all the secular people, and all the liberals. > > I disagree with the idea that such a split exists. There are rural secular people and urban religious people; there are rural liberals and urban conservatives; and there are religious liberals and secular conservatives. And all these groups are mixed together geographically. It’s not a binary split. But it is true that the rural US differs from the urban US along the dimensions of religion and politics. [Cite](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004891-shades-red-and-blue-across-counties-shows-surprising-balance) The above link breaks down counties by polarization. The bulk of extreme left counties are on the coast or near major urban centers. The bulk of extreme right counties are in the rural middle of the nation. Let the nation split where the cracks already exist. Those who are out of place where they are can relocate. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Even if you were able to find the split line on any of these issues, you wouldn’t necessarily be improving things by dividing the country along it. Ironically, often times the further out on a spectrum people are, the less likely they are to get along with other people at the same end of the same spectrum. Look at religion - the more devout somebody is in the belief that their own faith is the right one, the less likely they are to be tolerant of devout believers in another faith. The same is true about politics. Often times they only thing that keeps people united is their shared opposition to the people on the other end of the spectrum. Remove that end of the spectrum, and the people on the remaining end will turn on each other. It seems things would run much more smoothly when the extreme polarization that has paralyzed Congress is eliminated. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/42 "2016-06-27T04:00:17Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Yeah, the Union won the Civil War. But that’s not the topic of discussion. I’m not asking if states can succeed. The answer to that is clear and indisputable. I’m asking should they or any other political entity be able to. > > How many does Singapore have? Depends on the legal frameworks they are bound to and how much force various parties are willing to use. In some cases it’s legal and somewhat pragmatic why not? In other cases, like the USA, we have a large military for a reason. There’s no sense in purposely allowing a few malcontets to permanently weaken the nation. It’s better to whip that ass, while letting them keep their stylish flag, and stay strong as a nation. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a different topic. In fact, I think there’s a current thread on the issue of whether secession _is_ a legal possibility (short answer: no, in this country). This thread is debating the topic of whether secession _should be_ a legal possibility. See above. > [@UDS](#): > > The US military was involved in establishing Singapore as an independent state? Did I miss something? 😕 My quote says NYC. Whoever owned Singapore obviously didn’t want it enough to fight for it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/43 "2016-06-27T04:00:22Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > I don’t think it has to be done on a micro level. Rural America is very different than urban and costal regions of the nation. Much of the resentment of rural America comes from the sense that they are ruled by people far away and of an essentially different culture. > > If the nation split so that the rural, conservative and religious portions of the nation governed themselves, allowing the urban, liberal and secular portions to do the same, there would be less resentment and less gridlock. It’s a nice dream, but the different parts of the U.S. rely on each other for different things. What we need is for people, especially politicians, to stop exaggerating how much the system is “broken” and stop pouring fuel on the fire of polarization. We have more in common than things that divide us as Americans. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/44 "2016-06-27T04:01:36Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > It’s not a binary split. But it is true that the rural US differs from the urban US along the dimensions of religion and politics. > > [Cite](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004891-shades-red-and-blue-across-counties-shows-surprising-balance) > > The above link breaks down counties by polarization. The bulk of extreme left counties are on the coast or near major urban centers. The bulk of extreme right counties are in the rural middle of the nation. > > Let the nation split where the cracks already exist. Those who are out of place where they are can relocate. > > It seems things would run much more smoothly when the extreme polarization that has paralyzed Congress is eliminated. All the state and city governments run smoothly? I don’t think they do. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/45 "2016-06-27T04:16:09Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > It’s a nice dream, but the different parts of the U.S. rely on each other for different things. What we need is for people, especially politicians, to stop exaggerating how much the system is “broken” and stop pouring fuel on the fire of polarization. We have more in common than things that divide us as Americans. The new nations could still trade and interact. But people would be to a greater extent to live under the type of government that best suits them. Personally, I don’t think the divide is exaggerated. But that’s a topic for another thread I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/46 "2016-06-27T04:17:23Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > All the state and city governments run smoothly? I don’t think they do. Not all, but I’m not proposing each county in the US become it’s own little micro-nation. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/47 "2016-06-27T04:21:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a different topic. In fact, I think there’s a current thread on the issue of whether secession _is_ a legal possibility (short answer: no, in this country). This thread is debating the topic of whether secession _should be_ a legal possibility. International law, and the international community, generally recognised the existence of a right of self-determination. The right is generally regarded as inherent in a “nation” or a “people”, which of course leaves unanswered the important question of what kind of community amounts to nation or people with an inherent right of self-determination. In most of the real-world cases where the right of self-determination has been referred to or invoked, a “people” has been (a) a previously independent country under foreign military occupation, or (b) an ethnically distinct people occupying an identifiable territory, subject to colonial occupation. But there have been a few cases of self-determination being exercised to create a state by secession which don’t fall clearly into either of these categories. Ireland wasn’t formally a colony but part of metropolitan UK when the Irish Free State seceded in 1922. Singapore wasn’t a colony of Malaysia, even if it was the only Malaysian state with a majority Chinese population. And of course there have been multinational states (Austrian empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia) which simply disintegrated, peacefully or otherwise, when there was no longer any force, internal or external, to keep the various nations together in one state. In those cases ethnic or national differences seem enough to support the exercise of a right of self-determination without the additional factors of either colonial or foreign military occupation. If Scotland secedes from the UK, that will be another example. Whereas attempts at secession by people who are _not_ ethnically or nationally distinct generally meed with less success, and less international support. So, does e.g. Texas have a right of self-determination such as would found secession from the US? We won’t know until they try, but I’d say their prospects of attracting much international support or sympathy are not good. They’re not a colony of the US; nor are they under foreign military occupation. And their American cultural and national identity is, if anything, quite strongly articulated; they certainly can’t claim to be a distinct from Americans as, say, the Scots are from the English. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/48 "2016-06-27T04:27:47Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > International law, and the international community, generally recognised the existence of a right of self-determination. The right is generally regarded as inherent in a “nation” or a “people”, which of course leaves unanswered the important question of what kind of community amounts to nation or people with an inherent right of self-determination. In most of the real-world cases where the right of self-determination has been referred to or invoked, a “people” has been (a) a previously independent country under foreign military occupation, or (b) an ethnically distinct people occupying an identifiable territory, subject to colonial occupation. > > But there have been a few cases of self-determination being exercised to create a state by secession which don’t fall clearly into either of these categories. Ireland wasn’t formally a colony but part of metropolitan UK when the Irish Free State seceded in 1922. Singapore wasn’t a colony of Malaysia, even if it was the only Malaysian state with a majority Chinese population. And of course there have been multinational states (Austrian empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia) which simply disintegrated, peacefully or otherwise, when there was no longer any force, internal or external, to keep the various nations together in one state. In those cases ethnic or national differences seem enough to support the exercise of a right of self-determination without the additional factors of either colonial or foreign military occupation. If Scotland secedes from the UK, that will be another example. > > Whereas attempts at secession by people who are _not_ ethnically or nationally distinct generally meed with less success, and less international support. So, does e.g. Texas have a right of self-determination such as would found secession from the US? We won’t know until they try, but I’d say their prospects of attracting much international support or sympathy are not good. They’re not a colony of the US; nor are they under foreign military occupation. And their American cultural and national identity is, if anything, quite strongly articulated; they certainly can’t claim to be a distinct from Americans as, say, the Scots are from the English. Should their be a legal possibility of succession? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/49 "2016-06-27T04:33:15Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Depends on the legal frameworks they are bound to and how much force various parties are willing to use. In some cases it’s legal and somewhat pragmatic why not? In other cases, like the USA, we have a large military for a reason. There’s no sense in purposely allowing a few malcontets to permanently weaken the nation. It’s better to whip that ass, while letting them keep their stylish flag, and stay strong as a nation. Is the United States the only country where secession should be prohibited (and opposed by force if necessary) or are there others? Where is the dividing line between countries where secession should be allowed and where it should be prohibited? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/50 "2016-06-27T04:36:40Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > It seems things would run much more smoothly when the extreme polarization that has paralyzed Congress is eliminated. I would strongly dispute that. If you think the divide between conservatives and liberals is bad now, imagine what it would be like when they were facing each other across a tangled international border, each side with its own military and a sense that the “other side” is occupying territory they should have. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/51 "2016-06-27T04:39:00Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > It’s not a binary split. But it is true that the rural US differs from the urban US along the dimensions of religion and politics. > > [Cite](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004891-shades-red-and-blue-across-counties-shows-surprising-balance) > > The above link breaks down counties by polarization. The bulk of extreme left counties are on the coast or near major urban centers. The bulk of extreme right counties are in the rural middle of the nation. Did you read the article you cited? It pretty much says the opposite of what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/52 "2016-06-27T04:46:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I would strongly dispute that. If you think the divide between conservatives and liberals is bad now, imagine what it would be like when they were facing each other across a tangled international border, each side with its own military and a sense that the “other side” is occupying territory they should have. Seems to me that if there would be war if the nation split, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect a civil war if it remains united. But not having two essential incompatible cultures constantly battling to shape the nation as they see fit would tend to lessen tensions. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/53 "2016-06-27T04:52:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Did you read the article you cited? It pretty much says the opposite of what you’re saying. From the cite, concerning far left counties: > [@](#): > > Group D1 is mainly in large metropolitan cores, especially on the two coasts – the northeastern Megalopolis, and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, but also Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, plus a few ethnic minority areas, as along the border with Mexico, and noted in the table as metropolitan, high in minorities, and culturally progressive. Cluster D2 is smaller, non-metropolitan, majority minority, culturally moderate, and primarily with black, Hispanic or Native American settlement, but with a different sub-set of counties in Vermont, upstate New York, and in environmental recreation areas in the west. These tilt more progressive. I’ve said the urban/costal areas are more liberal. From the cite, concerning far right counties: > [@](#): > > R1 and R2 are the most conservative, mainly rural and non-metropolitan respectively, and tend to occupy the same areas, dominating huge portions of two realms: the western high plains from Texas to North Dakota, and the extended Mormon region, centered on Utah but stretching to neighboring states. In addition, there are some added counties in Appalachia and into the south. R3 counties are as conservative and also rural, and are found mainly in Appalachia, Missouri (Ozarks) and in a far north belt from the Dakotas to eastern Washington. I’ve said the rural areas tend to be more conservative. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/54 "2016-06-27T04:58:27Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Should their be a legal possibility of succession? There is, in international law, and nations which fail to respect the right of self-determination can find themselves the subject of international sanctions. The problem is that the precise parameters of that right are unclear, and the willingness of the international community to enforce the right where it is not respected is patchy. But that the legal right exists is not in any doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/55 "2016-06-27T05:00:44Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > There is, in international law, and nations which fail to respect the right of self-determination can find themselves the subject of international sanctions. The problem is that the precise parameters of that right are unclear, and the willingness of the international community to enforce the right where it is not respected is patchy. But that the legal right exists is not in any doubt. I’m asking a hypothetical. Do you personally think it would be a good thing if secession were legally possible? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/56 "2016-06-27T05:20:11Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > I’m asking a hypothetical. Do you personally think it would be a good thing if secession were legally possible? It might or might not. It would depend on the detail. A mechanism by which national or ethnic minorities occupying a distinct territory could secede might be a better idea that an a mechanism by which any group of two or more landowners with contiguous landholdings of any size could secede. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/57 "2016-06-27T14:37:28Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > I’ve said the urban/costal areas are more liberal. > > I’ve said the rural areas tend to be more conservative. You’re focusing on what the article says are the extremes and ignoring the center. The article plainly says that some counties are predominantly Republican or Democratic but points out how many counties are not. > [@](#): > > Clearly there are large areas of extreme polarization, and we will show them. But there are also more balanced kinds of counties which vote not consistently with one side. These contested areas are more extensive than people likely believe or the media proclaim. This is healthy for the nation. The article says that the “contested” part the country is bigger than either the Republican or Democratic areas. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/58 "2016-06-28T02:14:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re focusing on what the article says are the extremes and ignoring the center. The article plainly says that some counties are predominantly Republican or Democratic but points out how many counties are not. The article says that the “contested” part the country is bigger than either the Republican or Democratic areas. None of that detracts from my point. Hard left tends to be urban/costal, hard right tends to be rural. It doesn’t follow from that that all rural is hard right or all urban/costal is hard left. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482/59 "2016-06-28T02:30:20Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Not sure, but it’s beside the point. I’m asking _should_ secession be an option, not how it should be implemented. It’s already an option on the local level. communities have succeeded from cities just as cities have expanded their domain. We’ve certainly seen it on a country level with cities like Hong Kong although I’m not sure that was by choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secession/758482.md?page=2)