Do you think secession movements will ever gain serious ground again?

[LBJ Revivalist]

I go on right leaning boards and A LOT of the talk there is secession, or that the federal government is tyrannical, or specifically Obama. I've seen Obama on those boards compared to Mao and Nero, literally. I've seen them argue that our government is worse now than the Crown was in 1775.

Do you think this is simply right wing hyperbole, simply rhetoric and angry speech due to a Democrat being in the White House, or do you think there is truly some deep division in this country? Do you think that the idea of secession will ever take hold again or bear fruit, as in violence or even the actual secession of a state?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, inevitably. The options we face are either peaceful secession or violent collapse as a nation.

[Oakvale]

No.

The far-right rhetoric you speak of is to be expected when there's a Democrat - especially a black Democrat - in the White House, but it won't actually amount to anything. Remember, most people aren't nutjobs - ignore the vocal minority.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not within my lifetime, at least. The American Civil War has created an association between secession & violent oppression in the minds of 90% of the population. No matter how illogical that association may be, the simple fact is that secession has been completely discredited as far as the average American voter is concerned.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     Not within my lifetime, at least. The American Civil War has created an association between secession & violent oppression in the minds of 90% of the population. No matter how illogical that association may be, the simple fact is that secession has been completely discredited as far as the average American voter is concerned.

Voters wouldn't be the ones deciding this.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I doubt the nation will ever be polarized enough over a single issue again.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not within my lifetime, at least. The American Civil War has created an association between secession & violent oppression in the minds of 90% of the population. No matter how illogical that association may be, the simple fact is that secession has been completely discredited as far as the average American voter is concerned.

Voters wouldn't be the ones deciding this.

     Yeah, secession probably won't succeed (or even be taken seriously) if 90% of the population opposes it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - although eventually the U.S. may crumble into smaller nations (or complete anarchy), but it won't be an active seccesion movement.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No - although eventually the U.S. may crumble into smaller nations (or complete anarchy), but it won't be an active seccesion movement.

There already are active secession movements...

[??????????]

I certainly hope their would be some.

[Joe Biden 2020]

No.

The far-right rhetoric you speak of is to be expected when there's a Democrat - especially a black Democrat - in the White House, but it won't actually amount to anything. Remember, most people aren't nutjobs - ignore the vocal minority.

This.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - although eventually the U.S. may crumble into smaller nations (or complete anarchy), but it won't be an active seccesion movement.

There already are active secession movements...

Not serious ones that have a chance at succeeding though.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No - although eventually the U.S. may crumble into smaller nations (or complete anarchy), but it won't be an active seccesion movement.

There already are active secession movements...

Not serious ones that have a chance at succeeding though.

How do you know?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - although eventually the U.S. may crumble into smaller nations (or complete anarchy), but it won't be an active seccesion movement.

There already are active secession movements...

Not serious ones that have a chance at succeeding though.

How do you know?

Because if they were legitimate enough to be successful, I would know about them.  A seccession movement that's not known by a large percentage of the population is doomed to fail.

[Joe Republic]

Aside from Rick Perry shooting his stupid mouth off last year, I think the only notable secession movements have been in Alaska and Vermont.  In the former's case, the AIP nosedived after Walter Hickel's term, and now they can't break 1% of the vote in gubernatorial elections.  In the latter case, the hubbub (if you can even call it that) died down immediately after Bush left office, and the guy they gave two thirds of the vote to took over.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AIP wasn't a notable secession movement - it never stood any chance of actually going anywhere.

[tpfkaw]

"Ever" is a very long time.  The USA will not last forever.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aside from Rick Perry shooting his stupid mouth off last year, I think the only notable secession movements have been in Alaska and Vermont.  In the former's case, the AIP nosedived after Walter Hickel's term, and now they can't break 1% of the vote in gubernatorial elections.  In the latter case, the hubbub (if you can even call it that) died down immediately after Bush left office, and the guy they gave two thirds of the vote to took over.

Uh, both of those secession movements are still very much alive and active.

[Bo]

Some advice: Don't take everything that everyone says serious. As for the question, No. Secession became illegal (in practice) after the Civil War, and there would be no benefits for any state in leaving the Union.

[tpfkaw]

Some advice: Don't take everything that everyone says serious. As for the question, No. Secession became illegal (in practice) after the Civil War, and there would be no benefits for any state in leaving the Union.

Besides being able to do whatever they want politically?

[Bo]

Some advice: Don't take everything that everyone says serious. As for the question, No. Secession became illegal (in practice) after the Civil War, and there would be no benefits for any state in leaving the Union.

Besides being able to do whatever they want politically?

States already have a lot of powers and would any state seriously want to form an alliance with a foreign nation? I find it unlikely.

[Phony Moderate]

Aside from Rick Perry shooting his stupid mouth off last year, I think the only notable secession movements have been in Alaska and Vermont.  In the former's case, the AIP nosedived after Walter Hickel's term, and now they can't break 1% of the vote in gubernatorial elections.  In the latter case, the hubbub (if you can even call it that) died down immediately after Bush left office, and the guy they gave two thirds of the vote to took over.

Uh, both of those secession movements are still very much alive and active.

You are delusional.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Aside from Rick Perry shooting his stupid mouth off last year, I think the only notable secession movements have been in Alaska and Vermont.  In the former's case, the AIP nosedived after Walter Hickel's term, and now they can't break 1% of the vote in gubernatorial elections.  In the latter case, the hubbub (if you can even call it that) died down immediately after Bush left office, and the guy they gave two thirds of the vote to took over.

Uh, both of those secession movements are still very much alive and active.

The AIP isn't really a secessionist movement nowadays: they just really dislike the Federal Government. SVR lost a lot of support after its ties to neo-Confederate groups like the League of the South were revealed, and haven't been very active since Bush left office. Both organizations still EXIST, but they aren't particularly active at the moment and have only remote chances of success.

[??????????]

I don't know why people here want to associate so much negativity to secession, outside of their centralized government ideology.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aside from Rick Perry shooting his stupid mouth off last year, I think the only notable secession movements have been in Alaska and Vermont.  In the former's case, the AIP nosedived after Walter Hickel's term, and now they can't break 1% of the vote in gubernatorial elections.  In the latter case, the hubbub (if you can even call it that) died down immediately after Bush left office, and the guy they gave two thirds of the vote to took over.

Uh, both of those secession movements are still very much alive and active.

The AIP isn't really a secessionist movement nowadays: they just really dislike the Federal Government. SVR lost a lot of support after its ties to neo-Confederate groups like the League of the South were revealed, and haven't been very active since Bush left office. Both organizations still EXIST, but they aren't particularly active at the moment and have only remote chances of success.

And what do you base this on? The SVR movement doesn't get much mainstream media attention these days, but it's not like it was getting a whole lot during the Bush years either. Doesn't mean the movement has died out.

The SVR movement was recently documented as the 'Green Tea Party' in the Huffington Post and it's also one of several burgeoning secession movements discussed in Bill Kauffman's most recent book released a few months ago.

Of course there were elements in the secession movement during the Bush years that were only using it as a vehicle to support Democrats, just like there are establishment Republicans using the tea party movement today. But Obama and the Democrats have certainly not implemented any changes that would address the intellectual and ideological justifications given for secession. If you've read The Vermont Manifesto, you know most of the seeds for secession were in fact planted by dissatisfaction with Clinton-era policies.

Plus the SVR movement is this year for the first time ever actually fielding candidates in races across Vermont. They are far from interested in working with the Democratic party.

As for the evil SPLC's branding of any secession movement as "neo-Confederate" and "racist", that's one big LOL.