For me, yes. I live in the South. I don’t want to have my citizenship taken from me, or be forced to live as a foreigner in some nation that I have huge ideological problems with.
I just don’t see how any group of people should have the ability to strip large swaths of people of their citizenship or force them to relocate or live at the mercy of a foreign (and hostile) government.
I would only approve of secession if it where by popular, unanimous vote (effectively impossible).
Actually, among the fringe groups in the U.S. who support secession, the concept of suddenly keeping all those tax revenues to themselves is one of the prime motivators for secession. They want to suddenly be able to keep all the tax revenue that they generate (without, of course, repaying any of the federal funding that they have previously received).
Of course, it would be more likely that all the international corporations would bug out of London so that they could maintain their headquarters in a complete nation that had sufficient laws, police, and military to protect them. But in the secessionists’ pipe dreams, those companies would be delighted to shrug off the federal tax burden, blithely unaware of the consequences. (I don’t think most corporate boards and administrations are that silly.)
By this logic, wouldn’t we have to disallow emigration as well? So all the folks who were going to leave the country if Bush or Obama was elected have to stay.
ISTM that secession is by its nature an extreme option. A state simply cannot agree to disagree with a federal government, over some key issue (or set of issues) and so they choose to leave.
Obviously it wouldn’t be something to take lightly, and I doubt it is going to happen in the US anytime soon, but I don’t see how it is undemocratic. A majority of the citizens of state X decide they don’t want to be part of the US anymore. The minority would have to put up with that, just like they have to put up with all the other decisions the majority makes, with which they don’t agree.
Regards,
Shodan
For one thing, if you’re discontented, you can leave your nation for another. Secession means making OTHER people leave theirs, involuntarily.
What if a majority of a state wants to leave the US but keep all Federal lands and properties (like military bases, equipment, parks, etc.), and ignore any share of the national debt? What if a majority of Arkansas wants to secede, but a majority of Pulaski County wants to remain in the US?
No. You can leave; you can’t make me leave.
Not everything is up for majority vote, though, in a functioning democracy. You can’t vote away my right to free speech, my right to due process, or my citizenship.
The “rage” that opponents in the U.S. tend to have against the notion of secession is based on two related points.
[ul]
[li]The last effort at secession was engendered specifically to promote a violation of human rights that is now universally condemned. (Granting even that it was not universally condemned in any region of the country at the time.)[/li][li]The current promoters of secession have nearly all promoted the idea for the purpose of limiting or curtailing the rights of citizens currently living in the areas where the fringe are active or for the purpose of avoiding their responsibilities to support the common weal, even though they have, themselves, been the beneficiaries of federal “largesse” for years.[/li][/ul]
I suspect that most of us are not nearly as enraged as we are amused by the secessionists, but those who are the most vocal–prompted by the points I have mentioned–tend to be angry rather than amused.
Unless you count the American Revolution as a secessionist movement.
That one didn’t have anywhere near universal support, but it did have the support of a lot of very smart and thoughtful people, and they came up with a Declaration explaining in detail why they were “seceding” and why they had the right to do so.
Sometimes, like in divorces, people(s) just grow apart. Nobody has to stay married; sometimes two (or more) sides can size up the situation and decide that heading off into different directions might be best for all parties involved. The day may come, for instance, when we all come to the conclusion that breaking up that old gang of ours may be better all around.
We get along fine with our Canadian neighbors. Why couldn’t we do the same with our former fellow Americans? Like I said, this is fun to think about for me – the negative emotions just confuse me.
I think the most negative reactions might be coming from folks who, under the hypothesized secession, would be forced to abandon either the country or the state they call home.
Just as soon as we begin to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions to bring warfare on the secessionists, I will vote to let them go.
As individual decisions, divorce away. I don’t think this reasoning holds when applied to millions of people, however. No state is going to feel any one way unanimously; that’s why we have a political process that can cope with that, rather than an opt-out clause for majorities.
For one thing, for there to be an actual secession movement, there would have to be some issue that so inflamed the popular will that it led to the fracturing of our
237-year-old nation. Given that our model of government is based on reconciliation of competing interests and compromise, for something to rise to the level of secession means that there would be a bitter struggle. There would be no casual decision to split up the Union because it was time, or better in the long run. I think another war would be far more likely than a handshake and a wish for good luck.
This applies to the U.S. only, needless to say. We don’t have the same background or factors in play that the Czech Republic and Slovakia did, for instance.
If you disallow secession, I can’t leave either.
You can indirectly, by amending the Constitution.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
What if a majority of a state wants to leave the US but keep all Federal lands and properties (like military bases, equipment, parks, etc.), and ignore any share of the national debt?
[/QUOTE]
It would be worse than the worst divorce you can imagine, and for many of the same reasons. Maybe the state could pay some of it back with their share of the Social Security trust fund.
What if, overall, that state paid more in taxes to the federal government than it received in return?
Regards,
Shodan
I’d hate having to get a visa just to visit Disneyland or Disneyworld. There’s a novel, “Ecotopia” by Ernest Callenbach, where the left coast secedes from the union. Secession would likely be a lot bloodier in real life unless the state possessed nuclear weapons as a deterrent, in which case it could be even bloodier.
Not by a majority vote.
Of course you can. You can walk, or drive, or get on a flight, etc.
Mr. Mace, did you lose a bet or something? Usually your posts are the paragon of moderation, this is hogwash.
Since I live in Texas, this is a big part of why it makes my pulse race a little every time I hear the word “secession”. I like being in the U.S. very much, thank you. Texas as a sovereign nation was a farce. We started to approach the U.S. to be annexed in 1837, the year after independence from Mexico. If we hadn’t been annexed, I’d be in Mexico. San Antonio was captured twice in the ten years of independence. The main reason we won the Texas Revolution was because Santa Anna was a tyrant who just about everyone was glad to be rid of, and a joke of a general. I actually have ancestors who fought in the Texas revolution, so I’m not denigrating their struggle, but they were lucky to fight Santa Anna.
So, basically, it would be a war. That seems like a good argument against any attempts at secession.
So what? You seem set upon wanting to allow them to leave- disregarding all the other issues, are you suggesting they would demand their money back from the federal government? I don’t think that would go over well.
You can, you just can’t take your country with you.
Right, a much more stringent process than a majority vote.
A couple of good points being made that hadn’t occurred to me, maybe because I have no worries about my own home area. If my state/region were to secede, it’s probably more likely to be moving ahead in a direction I more or less approve. So, no hard feelings to those who didn’t come along; maybe we’ll make room for ya if you see the light down the road.
Another reason I don’t get the negative vibes about this topic is that I could see a schism occurring where the new entities would not be substantially different. We make a big fuss about the issues every four years and damn the other team to eternal hell but in the end we mostly differ in the nuts and bolts, not so much in big values.