First to Secede?

[squarepusher]

id have to go with Texas

 

[Promontorium]

When considering which state would be willing to first abandon the US, I wouldn't necessarily expect any state with a significant Libertarian population.

Having a complex and informed opinon on the government requires first caring about the government in some manner. I think states that ignore national politics, and are generally uneducated and hate the government would be the first to get out.

1. Hawaii. They haven't forgotten they lost their queen by the end of an American gun. They do not need American money, they have become the playground for Japan. They are also ethnocentric and appreciate their non-American heritage.

2. Texas. If you think people are only wary of Texas' loyalty from recent events, the lone starstate, has some other aspects that might require some attention.

3. California. Bordered by buffer states (desert, desert, rain forest) Californians don't really know crap about the rest of America. They'd learn more about America from TV, movies, etc. except 90% of all TV, movies, etc. are made in California, paid for by California, involving Californians, or simply expressing people in the other states talking like they're from California. If the rest of America fell off the map, California wouldn't realize it. Not that Californians could locate the rest of America on a map to begin with. Hell, I consider myself educated, I've travelled the world, but I still don't believe in New Hampshire. I think people say it's a state, but I swear I have no idea where or when this thing existed. Shires are in England. I don't know about this "American shire" business. Also 40% of the people in California are already citizens of Mexico. It won't take long for Baja and Alta California to finally reunite under the same flag.

 

[Vessol]

Montana

 

[Dreepa]

I live in NH. I moved with the FSP. (and encourage everyone to check out www.freestateproject.org)

I think VT will be the first to go.


(And I think it is 20 years or so off in the future if at all)

 

[LittleLightShining]

New Hampshire, just cause it's draining the libertarians from everywhere else.

NH couldn't even pass a Sovereignty Resolution.

 

[Chase]

As a proud Texan, how could I provide an answer any different?

 

[ghengis86]

As a proud Texan, how could I provide an answer any different?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/38174.html

12th largest economy in the world, 40th largest in land mass and 47th in population.

i guess california would be viable by these metrics too, but it's interesting to consider

 

[nobody's_hero]

The federal government left America a long time ago.

New Hampshire will probably be second, though.

 

[emazur]

Whenever I hear talk of secession on the news, it's almost always Texas. This is from just 2 months ago:
YouTube - Texans call for ballot referendum for secession
The other one I sometimes hear about is Vermont

 

[Time for Change]

dont know, but I'll likely be going there!

 

[james1906]

As a proud Texan, how could I provide an answer any different?

Of the 4 states that were countries at one time, only Hawai`i has annexed against its will. Hawai`i is 2000 miles away from North America. Hawai`i struggles to maintain a cultural identity. Hawaiian independence would garner support from other nations as a rejection of American empire.

I'm in Texas as well, but Hawai`i will be first to go.

Part of me does think that Lakotah or a similar Sioux nation may come about first.

 

[Brett]

Montana, New Hampshire or Alaska. Preferably all three.

 

[virgil47]

If Texas were to secede Mexico would gobble them up in a heartbeat and the U.S. gov. would quietly stand by. A single state no matter how tough the citizens simply can not stand against the forces of a country set on conquest.

If Alaska were to attempt to secede the U.S. gov. would react immediately in a rather forceful manner. The natural resources found in Alaska are simply to important to the U.S. to allow to escape. Also Alaska's isolated geography makes the use of force without the interference of the other states insures a quick and harsh answer to any thoughts of secession on the part of Alaska.

If I was to hazard a guess as to which state would be the most likely to secede and possibly succeed it would be a state with little or no natural resources and not of any strategic importance to the U.S. gov. Of course any state that wished to secede would have to be located on a coast and not inland for obvious reasons. It also would not be located on our southern border as Mexico believes we stole that land from them and would immediately begin to reacquire it.

It might be possible for a state on our northern border to secede and survive. However that survival would be dependent on Canada's good graces which I am no longer sure exists.

So it would seem that any single state that wishes to secede will have to be one that the rest of the union would not miss. If multiple states working in concert decided to secede simultaneously the chance of success would be greatly enhanced with the addition of each state that joined the secession.

 

[South Park Fan]

Do you really think Mexico would be strong enough to take over Texas? They couldn't do it the first time when Mexico was a much greater power than it is today. Could they really defeat a new Texan Republic when they can't even beat drug dealers?

I would think that the first state to secede would trigger a domino effect of seceding states.

 

[virgil47]

Do you really think Mexico would be strong enough to take over Texas? They couldn't do it the first time when Mexico was a much greater power than it is today. Could they really defeat a new Texan Republic when they can't even beat drug dealers?

I would think that the first state to secede would trigger a domino effect of seceding states.

That is a nice thought however the reality is that Mexico has many more resources than Texas. These resources not only include oil but soldiers as well. The state of Texas has no soldiers as they along with the rest of the states gave them to the U.S. gov. Police forces and citizenry will not fare well against soldiers without help from the other states and that help will most likely be blockaded by the U.S. gov.

I believe that if the states do not secede as one the vast majority will take a wait and see attitude. They will want to see the outcome before committing themselves. This of course would be to the liking of the U.S. gov.

If the states and I mean the majority of states should decide to reclaim their military from the U.S. gov. that would change the complexion of this entire discussion. I am not going to hold my breath as the states have shown that they value money over security.

 

[james1906]

Do you really think Mexico would be strong enough to take over Texas? They couldn't do it the first time when Mexico was a much greater power than it is today. Could they really defeat a new Texan Republic when they can't even beat drug dealers?

I would think that the first state to secede would trigger a domino effect of seceding states.

We Texans have guns, only the government and the drug runners tend to be armed in Mexico. While the vast majority of the people of the border cities are predominately of Mexican heritage, I'm sure many would feel that joining with Mexico would be taking a step back.

 

[virgil47]

We Texans have guns, only the government and the drug runners tend to be armed in Mexico. While the vast majority of the people of the border cities are predominately of Mexican heritage, I'm sure many would feel that joining with Mexico would be taking a step back.

Are so sure that you are willing to bet your families lives on it. If Texas were to attempt to secede there is a better than even chance that the U.S. would assist Mexico in its conquest of Texas. The U.S. gov. simply could not afford to allow the successful secession of Texas. By assisting Mexico the U.S. gov. would make an example of Texas that the other states simply could not help but notice.

 

[james1906]

Are so sure that you are willing to bet your families lives on it. If Texas were to attempt to secede there is a better than even chance that the U.S. would assist Mexico in its conquest of Texas. The U.S. gov. simply could not afford to allow the successful secession of Texas. By assisting Mexico the U.S. gov. would make an example of Texas that the other states simply could not help but notice.

Where does the energy to fuel the opponent's tanks and jets come from?

 

[cheapseats]

The question is MY mind is, why isn't the Jefferson State project making a full-court press?

I will argue it is because certain Players in the Jefferson State project are jockeying for THEIR piece-not-to-be-confused-with-peace of Washington power and perks.

 

[virgil47]

Where does the energy to fuel the opponent's tanks and jets come from?

Mexico has a great deal of oil. It also has trade agreements with oil producing countries. Can the same be said of Texas? You also bring up another important point. Mexico does have tanks and jets but Texas does not.