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

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

[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.

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

Active doesn't mean they're gaining SERIOUS ground.

And what would constitute "SERIOUS ground"? Firing on Fort Sumter?

If secession is to be achieved, it has to be pursued the correct way. Barring some cataclysmic event, it's not going to happen overnight.

Anyway, as I mentioned, this year is actually the first time ever that the Second Vermont Republic is running it's own candidates, so Joe's claim that Obama somehow killed the secession movement is pretty blatantly false. Secession movements are getting more organized and better mobilized to effect change each and every day now.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

Those who love a UNITED States despise secessionist ideals. There is a firm line between being supportive of state's rights and wanting to sever union with this nation totally.

     However, there is no requirement that one who loves the United States opposes secession. Loving an area does not necessarily mean wanting to be politically joined to it. I am sure that there are many Americans who love the United Kingdom, but how many of them do you think want to be united with the U.K. under one government?

If you don't want to be politically joined with the US, why do you live here?

The two have nothing to do with each other. Americans have roots here with the land, the people, the institutions they choose to associate with. The regime in Washington is irrelevant to why people stay here, except perhaps in the case of the power-mad politicians themselves.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Anyway, as I mentioned, this year is actually the first time ever that the Second Vermont Republic is running it's own candidates, so Joe's claim that Obama somehow killed the secession movement is pretty blatantly false.

Well I guess I stand corrected.  After all, the SVR does in fact have a phenomenal 125 members!  Who knows how many more half-dozens (or even dozens!) more members they could have recruited after they stopped issuing memberships five years ago.

Yes, the movement has outgrown the stage of issuing membership cards. A lot of organizations have stopped issuing official membership cards considering it's a pointless and outdated practice, plus it gives fedgov and hate groups like the SPLC an easy enemies list to target.

Thus your giving a count of official members from five years ago means nothing. The movement for secession is far greater than the people who actively joined the SVR organization in it's infancy. It is a grassroots movement, not a top-down directed organization.