Cut to the chase - secession

[Stary Hickory]

I support secession for sure. It is probably the only means to really force the government back into a constitutional role. I think a major part of any freedom movement must revolve around making secession less taboo in the minds of the public....in fact not seceding is the insane thing to do considering what Americans are being forced to put up with.

 

[tremendoustie]

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989.

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

 

[Mini-Me]

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

As I mentioned before though, they wouldn't come in guns blazing. They'd roll into the seceding state in an orderly manner and commandeer the seceding state government, only firing if fired upon. This means that anyone firing upon them would lose the moral high ground, and anyone not firing upon them would have their state government commandeered.

I think that scenario is extremely likely if any state secedes outright. It may even happen to states who the feds decide are "overusing" nullification. However, even without bloodshed, it would be a PR nightmare as you said, and that would embolden more states to at least start using nullification more. The feds can't indefinitely occupy every US state with the military, after all.

 

[tremendoustie]

As I mentioned before though, they wouldn't come in guns blazing. They'd roll into the seceding state in an orderly manner and commandeer the seceding state government, only firing if fired upon. This means that anyone firing upon them would lose the moral high ground, and anyone not firing upon them would have their state government commandeered.

I think that scenario is extremely likely if any state secedes outright. It may even happen to states who the feds decide are "overusing" nullification. However, even without bloodshed, it would be a PR nightmare as you said, and that would embolden more states to at least start using nullification more. The feds can't indefinitely occupy every US state with the military, after all.

So the people should just ignore the commandeered government. Act like they're in recess.

 

[Mini-Me]

So the people should just ignore the commandeered government. Act like they're in recess.

Eventually, that would happen, and the occupying forces would lose their own morale...but only if states all over the place were using nullification and getting commandeered. Essentially, it would only happen if everyone already knew the feds were losing control. If just one state "misbehaves" and gets commandeered, do you really think the average, ordinary citizens are going to simply disobey the laws of the government during a time of martial law and extreme penalties? "Walking away" is generally not a simple matter for people who actually care about their lives and futures, and most people aren't lining up to become martyrs. There's a reason almost everyone still pays taxes to the IRS to this very day.

 

[libertarian4321]

I find the whole "secession" idea to be a rather simplistic, cartoonish, and poorly thought out panacea.

Lets assume Texas, the state most often mentioned in these "secession" fantasy scenarios (even though the overwhelming majority of Texans are against the idea), actually secedes and that the military doesn't squash the rebellion like a grape (as they surely would) and that the US doesn't slap crushing economic sanctions on the state (as they surely would).

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.

"Secession" is rash, unrealistic, and unlikely to make anything better. I want no part of it.

Did I mention that the "secession" would last about a day before it was put down by the military? This ain't 1861, folks- a time when we had a tiny American military. You're living in a fantasy world if you think secession wouldn't be put down quickly and efficiently, in a way that wasn't possible in 1861.

 

[libertarian4321]

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

 

[tremendoustie]

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

I'd let them hang out as long as they want.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

Help them how? Go after people who aren't paying federal taxes? I still think this would be a PR catastrophe.

 

[tremendoustie]

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.

That's totally untrue. Just look at what we have now. Of the three levels of government, the federal government is by far the most abusive, corrupt, and useless. Local government is the most accountable.

Removing the federal layer of government, and merely having local and state, would be a huge leap towards liberty.

 

[libertarian4321]

Help them how? Go after people who aren't paying federal taxes? I still think this would be a PR catastrophe.

Secession would be disastrous to many people (including the secessionists). I guarantee a huge percentage of the people would oppose the secession (some would probably do so violently). Those who remain loyal would ask the US government to restore their country and their rights as American citizens. I'd probably be one of them- I'm not one to go along with hare-brained schemes (like secession).

Secession fantasies are ludicrous. "Peaceful secession" fantasies are even more so.

 

[libertarian4321]

That's totally untrue. Just look at what we have now. Of the three levels of government, the federal government is by far the most abusive, corrupt, and useless. Local government is the most accountable.

Removing the federal layer of government, and merely having local and state, would be a huge leap towards liberty.

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

 

[Mini-Me]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

What's your stance on nullification?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

You can't really get your hands around the vast, expansive and monolithic federal government like you can local governments.

Yes, I'd rather have George W. Bush than George W. Bush... when the former is only a governor and the latter is in charge of the US empire. And since I'm not in Texas, it wouldn't be my particular problem.

 

[jmdrake]

It isn't written in the Constitution because it is implicit in a VOLUNTARY compact. It is bizarre to think that the Federal government, which was clearly intended to be an agent of the States with limited powers, and which the states chose to join or not, was some kind of suicide pact or Mafia blood oath from which there was no escape. There is nothing to suggest that was intended.

Also missing from the Constitutuion, by the way, is any authority for the Federal government to attack States that try to leave. And, as I am sure you are aware, the Federal government was one of enumerated powers and all rights not specifically granted it were reserved to the States. Including the right to leave without being attacked and destroyed.

And when it comes to war there IS right even if you lose. The North was wrong and the Federal government now is wrong. And if a State tries to secede now, it would be right even if it loses.

From the constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Remember George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion? And don't give me that "Oh, but they weren't a state" crap. If states have a right to rebel then so do individual citizens.

If you want pre-civil war evidence of the federal government going after official state actors see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Lastly the idea that states should have had the right to be slave states is utterly ridiculous. (You said that in an earlier post). Ron Paul was correct when he was that one of the reason for the civil war was the mistake of slavery. Slavery violates every conceivable idea of good government. If you support states rights based on the idea that people can "vote with their feet"...well that didn't apply slaves now did it? How about the idea of a "republican form of government" where the rights of the minority are protected? Note that the constitution said that federal government would GUARANTEE each state have a republican form of government! Do you honestly believe that slavery is an example of the rights of the minority being protected? And lastly the "fugitive slave laws" were a gross violation of states rights. (If you read through the southern declarations of secession you will see that one of their main complaints was that the federal government was not enforcing fugitive slave laws. They wanted their "states rights" to supersede the rights of other states.)

Anyway, I'm done here. I wasn't planning on getting into the silly never ending argument of whether the south was "right" or not. (It wasn't). Instead I wanted to point out the futility of secession versus the fact the nullification has already been shown to work! Go around talking about how the south should have been able to continue slavery and see how much support you end up getting for secession. In fact see how much support you end up getting for it at all.

 

[jmdrake]

Here's my last post in this thread. I've said everything I can possibly say on the issue. But please watch this video.

YouTube - Forgotten Lessons from the Nullification Crisis

You could get people to unite around nullification. Secession, by its very nature, will always be a divisive issue.

 

[libertarian4321]

You can't really get your hands around the vast, expansive and monolithic federal government like you can local governments.

If I could, I'd throttle it. Choke it down to a respectable size.

 

[klamath]

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

You get it. If it comes to the point of a federal government collapse then the union might and most likely would break apart but NOT before. Let one person show me a state where a majority of the Private citizens want to secede. Secession would be a minority group trying to force the majority to do what they wanted. Just on that score it would be considered a hostage situation not a secession. When you have a million or more people cut off cold turkey from social security and they are starving in the streets violence will happen.

 

[Acala]

not so

Secession worked so well last time. Seceding is that sure act of war as PROVEN by history.
Anybody that knowingly does an act that brings a a violent war around my family will be no friend of mine.

The USSR dissolved with nary a shot being fired. If Quebec voted to leave Canada, do you think Canada would attack them? timing is everything.

Anyway, what are you planning to do when you fail to change the Federal government (which you will, sorry to say), whimper and beg your master in Washington to let you have another crust when the bankers are done with their feast?

 

[Acala]

Maybe.

Wouldn't the Federal Government just embargo states that seceded? This seems like enough of a disincentive to stop such a thing from happening.

They can try. In my view, the moment of opportunity comes when the Federal government is on its knees due to economic collapse. When it is struggling just to keep the lights on and pay the skeleton crew. Then they are least likely to fight it.

 

[Acala]

yup

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989.

Yup. Even the Continental Army under General Washington was in open mutiny when they were not paid for a while.

The Mighty US army falls to pieces when the dollar collapses. It is built on the borrow and spend fallacy just like everything else around this Potemkin Village.