Not only do they get to secede, but they each get a Unicorn….Made out of platinum… studded with rubies & emeralds….. that pees gasoline.:rolleyes:
In the case of democracy, it would have to be the majority of the country, not the state. I want to secede my apartment from the USA, that’s 100% of it’s occupants. FREE ROGERTERIA!
Probably mass arrests for assault, kidnapping and murder, given that the only way to accomplish that would be by forcibly expelling or killing the people there who disagreed.
We were young and starry-eyed and couldn’t see how much better off the nation would be without the Confederate states suckling at the government’s teat. It’s been 150 years and we know better now.
You have roll-y eyes, but do you have a point? Either that or try harder with the snark. You really got deliver something.
[QUOTE=rogerbox]
In the case of democracy, it would have to be the majority of the country, not the state. I want to secede my apartment from the USA, that’s 100% of it’s occupants. FREE ROGERTERIA!
[/QUOTE]
So you see no substantial difference between the your apartment and one of the 50 states? Interesting. But you really evade the question. Let’s say that 100% of the state wanted to secede and a majority of the country was in favor of it. Would “democracy”, as you stated earlier be well served or ill served?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Probably mass arrests for assault, kidnapping and murder, given that the only way to accomplish that would be by forcibly expelling or killing the people there who disagreed.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you don’t know what the word means. Here, let me help you.
Well-served. Does this mean that when the majority of the country is for socialized single payer medicine and a firearms ban you will concede defeat? I mean you personally.
I wouldn’t mind kicking any of the states full of morons who vote republican and yet get more from the feds than they pay in out. It won’t happen, so I can say that comfortably, I am not sure it’s actually a good idea in practice, but it’d be nice for them to get their just desserts and bear the full brunt of their conservative fiscal policies on their own.
Or to be more blunt:
- The last effort at secession was engendered because many white people couldn’t accept black people as being human,
- The current “attempt” at secession is engendered because some white people can’t accept a black person as President.
“Attempt” is in quotes as the current secessionist movement is very, very few people as a percentage of the populace. It’s hard to call modern day secessionism a “movement” when, at most, 1/2 of 1% of Americans within any particular state think it an idea worth discussing.
The point is that having every one of a states million+ citizens agree to the last vote on *anything *is as likely as a Platinum Unicorn that poops gold. My hypothetical is as likely as yours.
FTR: Pakistan is a bad idea and always was.
That underscores the different historical backgrounds with which Americans and British may approach the idea of secession. Americans may tend to see the topic via the South having seceded for a terrible cause. British people may see it through the experience of the Empire dissolving and self-determination for subject peoples. Americans would tend to see the South having been reintegrated after defeat without any serious continuing resistance, reinforced by the civil rights movement finally exorcising legal segregation, the mutated descendant of secession. British people might instead recall the Irish struggle for independence and the misery of the continuing violence over Ulster.
Sorry I was answering the OP.
Which is worse, segregation in the American South or the US invasion of Iraq under GW Bush?
Yeah, you’re just underscoring my point. There’s opposition to the idea. Scottish separatism is being argued against based on the idea that we are better together. Contrary to some opinions upthread, Scottish separatism has very little to do with the “Scottish race” wanting their homeland back, and more to do with economics and good governance. Some large percentage of Scots will vote one way or the other based on who can best make the case that they’d be £100 a year better off. The “yes” and “no” campaigns reflect that fact.
But there isn’t rage at the idea. Nobody is seriously suggesting that Salmond is a traitor, or that the very broaching of the subject is in bad taste, or that people sympathetic to Scottish independence in the rest of the UK should be barred from elected office (a brouhaha over one of the Palin’s supposed association with some separatist group in Alaska comes to mind). The referendum will be held, and it will be held under the normal laws of elections in the UK.
Thankfully, this thread (especially tomndeb’s reply further up) has at least enlightened me as to why some Americans get angry.
Less than half of the people in the US vote. The ones who don’t vote, don’t because they are largely satisfied with how things are going. Of those who do vote only about 35% always vote one way either Dem Or Pub. With 20% to 30% swinging one way or the other. So it is a very small percentage of the population who are making all the noise. At any given time a vast majority of the people like things just about the way they are. Even the ones who are bleating about secession aren’t really serious about it. They’re just sore they didn’t get their way.
In that case (I’d say requiring 3/4ths of state legislatures as well as Congress signing off on it would be reasonable), then yes, allowing that secession would serve democracy.
I think Tom Tildrum has it right, it’s a matter of viewing the idea through different cultural experiences. The U.S.'s one secession attempt was a tragedy motivated by evil; nations leaving the British Empire has been common and often peaceful and for a good end.
The “blue staters” who want to let the South secede (although, as has been pointed out ad infinitum, ad nauseam, those who want to secede are a tiny minority) would end up getting a whiter country. All those African-Americans, Latinos & urban whites who vote Democratic but would be abandoned by the USA? Well, the Blues would be open to letting the whites immigrate…
This.
It would be salutary to amend the Constitution to include the right of secession. Not because then South Carolina and Mississippi would secede, but because then when the radical fringe started tub-thumping their own state leaders would have to pull out the PowerPoint presentation and explain exactly how that would be cutting their own throats.
As it is now, pols can bloviate about secession with no repercussions. That makes the public debate that much more unpleasant.
The proper response to the radical fringe is, as it has been, to ignore them.
Here’s a secession organization that actually exists, with a website and merch and everything: Cascadian Independence Project. They want to combine the Northwestern states with parts of Canada to form a new nation.
Secession isn’t a Southern issue; frankly, it’s not an issue at all.
Yes, but:
- The actual petitions to secede are done by people upset that a black man was elected President. “Blue Staters” are not upset that Obama was elected, and are therefore not signing these petitions.
- The “Blue Staters” calls for “the South” to secede is a reaction to the racists call for secession.
Both arguments are dumb, but the initial impulse and their petitions are driven by the Right’s reactionary idiocy to the fact that whitey is being lead by a black man.
I can’t agree with you. Evil festers in the dark. You have to let the sunshine in or you’ll never lance it.
The sane ignored the Creationists for 50 years and we wound up with the Kansas state curriculum. It’s unfortunate, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we have to fight the Derp every step of the way.
Do we know that, though? The WhiteHouse.gov petitions have no way to track the location of a signer. I highly doubt they were the serious call for political action you make them out to be, let alone decisive enough to divine a clear motive.
I think it’s more just people screwing around on the Internet, and the press and bloggers exaggerating the meaning beyond all reason to capture eyes, and score cheap political points via what is effectively a strawman argument.
Your brinksmanship approach, of allowing colossal, unjust mistakes like secession so that people must be talked out of making the mistake, seems like a dangerous remedy. Would you allow states to only teach the Bible in schools if they chose, so that leaders would have to tell the fringe that only teaching the Bible would disadvantage them in the marketplace?