Support or oppose military response to American secession?

If we add states, it should be a conservative and a liberal one at the same time. Otherwise it would upset the balance of power too much and in an arbitrary way. On the other hand, I don't really like places like DC and Puerto Rico not having the same representation. I'm not a fan of having the senate to begin with, though. At least eastern Oregon does have representation, albeit diluted by other parts of the state that are culturally completely different.

 

So...if I understand your argument, you would oppose DC or Puerto Rican statehood unless there was some other red state in the offing, to make things even. Interesting.

 

Secession would be messy, no matter which state tried it. Military assets, national debt, nuclear power, social security, border security, national currency, .......... I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface. Secession wouldn't be a viable option unless the US was experiencing a total financial collapse and rioting in the streets.

I have a son in the military and I don't think I could support sending him into harms way over secession.

 

Well then the US would have to decide whether to let them back in.

 

Suppose???

IT HAPPENED...............several states did it and the federal government sent the military on it's mission of total death and destruction to force them back in.

How do you get around that without paying full restitution to all those states which suffered that destruction?

 

What if the state and the United States could negotiate a deal on them so the United States is reimbursed the cost and/or given land along a border and/or retain a presence like in other foreign countries. Then you'd be OK with it?

 

I assume you're talking about 150 years ago... This is a different world. I'm interested in what The People would do today.

If we decide to not use military force to preserve the Union, 'all that destruction' may be avoided.

 

I am guessing that if we were to have a vote on whether or not to dissolve the Union, the US would be no more by a hefty margin

 

Still the same Constitution has Congress passed an amendment saying it is now allowed and enough state legislatures ratified? Don't you think the former Confederate states would seek damages?

 

Its not so much about what is allowed by law, rather its about what The People will tolerate. This POLL seems to indicate that making war against our own seceded states 1860s style would be dramatically unpopular today. Sure, the letter of the law says it would be justified, but the letter of the law doesn't do any actual fighting...

 

I think a CIVIL WAR in which over 600,000 which would be the equivalent of 6,000,000 today settled the matter, that thing called a precident. AGAIN why wouldn't the Southern states deserve restitution for the total destruction they endured because they did so?

 

For me, its not about what state or why. Its about the process. We have to decide on a process that the federal govt will respect, by which states can legally secede from the union, for surely any right of political self determination must provide for a method by which a state may dissolve the political ties binding it to a federal govt against the clear will of its citizenry and representative class.

What kind of elections for the plebiscite and by what measure of concurance (simple majority, 2/3rd, 3/5ths?) Does it require the state legislative assembly to concur by what measure of concurrance? And does the Governor get a veto as though this a routine bill?

I don't have the answers, but there should be a process for this.

 

You could prolly make the argument that they do ...but thats not what this thread is about. Its about secession happening today, not 150 years ago.

 

I'm just guessing here, but it could prolly be done with a constitutional amendment being passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures voting to allow a state to leave. But that takes it totally out of the hands of the people that live in a state that would wish to leave, so its not really 'self determination.' More like begging permission ...that would never be granted. The problem is that if it were easy to do, there'd would always be some state or another trying to secede if they didn't get their way about something. I think its fine that secession not be legally allowed. It should be a rather severe kinda thing. But I ultimately I think it would be wrong (and probably ruinously destructive for the whole nation) to militarily force a state to stay if it had democratically decided to leave. A union worth joining doesn't have to force anyone to be in it.

 

I agree with you, but in a general application, I'd say that if a state (or group of states) want to leave the "United" States of America, then let them go! Divide what needs to be divided and let people have the kind of government that they WANT to have.

That was the whole idea of breaking away from the English Crown in the first place! And, if anybody still remembers the wording of the Constitution's 10th Amendment, the idea of state's rights was supreme except for functions carefully enumerated (and limited to) in the very wording of the Constitution itself.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

AGAIN this was decided to the tune of over SIX HUNDERED LIVES and total destruction of the Southern States when the United States invaded the Confederacy.

 

I distinction without merit. Reimburse the Southern states then you might have a starting point.

I take it you would have opposed tje United States starting a Civil War since secession is not allowed?

 

That has as much merit as slavery reparations. Who has to pay and who gets the money? Both are concepts without a realistic solution. Not interested.

I would have indeed opposed militarily invading the confederacy.

 

Your focus is entirely different than mine. I don't give a **** what 2/3rd of states who's population are not wanting to leave think other than to ensure that the state is accurately reflecting the views of its constituants and its institutions. If TEXAS wants to go, as determined by its citizens and its institutions, then Texas goes. Colorado, Michigan, and Rhode Island can suck eggs. Washington DC can suck eggs too. The rights of the Union rest in a refusal to allow Texas back in, should it change its mind. This is an all volunteer Union or its a coerced relationship no different than Britain lording over Massechusetts. If the Union wants Texas to stay, it needs to offer it's citizens a compelling reason to stay Americans.

 

No disagreement here. All I'm saying is that a seceding state doesn't need secession to be legal for it to be able to secede, and making secession legal might incentivize states to secede prematurely.

 

Make it 'legal' provide a process, and if its premature, so be it! If say Texas takes that risk, and gets royally burned when it feels the consequences of lacking a military, a federal reserve system for its banks and the protection of that constitution, then other states will be a little more careful about what they ask Santa for.

 

I don't think it is possible on the continent due to the capitalist structure of our trade. Exactly how would you retain a normal "life", when your former states are still your customers.
I think what is chafing people is the growing feeling that our electoral system has been undermined by "Big Election", and "Big Incumbent", who have banded together to get the results "they" want at your expense.
I think most people see a break a way of a state as a threat to the whole of America. Basically it is bar talk.

 

Left wing secessionism.

 

I call it 'political liberty'. Its an idea that is hundreds of years old. You may even know some proponents from your American History books.

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I can't help but notice in that document, there is no reference to an inherent English right to a veto....


The good news is that we have a hell of a better methodology now to establish and measure 'the consent of the governed' and therein in my view is the only federal interest worth protecting by law. If the Federal govt wants to hold states in the union, it needs to give them sufficient reason to want to stay. This is not about sending a cease and desist demand letter. Its about providing incentives that make the state content with the status quo.

 

It's a legitimate position to hold in a historical sense, but in the current era it's a bit untenable.