if your state revolted against the union

[KEmperor]

See, it really depends on what the issue is.

[Hitchabrut]

Union, because of the hellhole of a state in which I live.

[Colin]

See, it really depends on what the issue is.

My thought exactly.

[Palefire]

For all the folks that have answered their state; I have to ask - why? and have you lived in more than one state in your lives?

[A18]

The federal government infringes on the freedoms of the American people more than the states.

[angus]

R-union.  Not surprising that the dems are fairly well split on this, while the GOP is fairly monolithic.  The defining characteristic of the GOP since its first national convention in 1856 was Nationalism.  Been that way ever since.  That's the only real thread that constantly runs through the party.  the whole point of republicanism is Union and Nationalism, and, in fact, is the only major overlap I really have with the party.  Well, that, and the fact that we can agree that the democrats bite.

[Schmitz in 1972]

My state, just like Robert E. Lee. He disapproved of secession, but he felt (like Statesrights) that we owe our states a higher level of commitment than our nation.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I actually do prefer my state to the country as a whole, because of the election results in each. This is Kerry country!

[Beet]

Depends on whichever has the highest chance of winning.

If for the life of me I could not discern which side would win, I would go with the side where I was currently residing.

R-union.  Not surprising that the dems are fairly well split on this, while the GOP is fairly monolithic.  The defining characteristic of the GOP since its first national convention in 1856 was Nationalism.  Been that way ever since.  That's the only real thread that constantly runs through the party.  the whole point of republicanism is Union and Nationalism, and, in fact, is the only major overlap I really have with the party.  Well, that, and the fact that we can agree that the democrats bite.

Come on, if Clinton was president, the numbers would be reversed.

In fact, I believe that the militia movement, the Branch Dividians, et. al. had some anti-federal tendencies.

[angus]

Depends on whichever has the highest chance of winning.

If for the life of me I could not discern which side would win, I would go with the side where I was currently residing.

that's the difference between republicans and democrats.  really.  sure, probably many of the dems are just joking with the "my state" answers, but this has nothing to do with taxes, social security, Iraq, two men screwing each other silly, terrorism, or even immigration policy.  you see, for the nationalist/unionist, there's only USA#1 versus anything else. 

No, clinton makes no difference.  first of all, you're assuming the revolt is against the president, but I understood the question to be:  rebellion against the USA.  yeah, you could argue, but what if a democrat president was on the side of Nationalism?  I'd say then that the result wouldn't happen.  because you can bet your bottom dollar that a GOP president wouldn't do it.  So if the dems don't do it either, it ain't gonna happen.  you want economic rightism without nationalism?  that's called The Libertarian Party.  If you want to know about that mindset, you're asking the wrong poster, as I'm neither particularly rightist nor particularly libertarian.  I'm just a run-of-the-mill secular centrist who's seen enough of the world to know that this is a special place and deserves to be defended.  (not by my kid, mind you!  but by someone's kid.)

[TB]

Depends on the reason for the revolt. The reasons for a revolt could be good or could be stupid.

You are absolutely right it depends on the reason for a revolt.

[12th Doctor]

Depends on the cause and how many other states are involved.

[Lt. Gov. Immy]

I can't think of a single issue that would make my state rebel that I would agree with, so, the Union.

[Beet]

Depends on whichever has the highest chance of winning.

If for the life of me I could not discern which side would win, I would go with the side where I was currently residing.

that's the difference between republicans and democrats.  really.  sure, probably many of the dems are just joking with the "my state" answers, but this has nothing to do with taxes, social security, Iraq, two men screwing each other silly, terrorism, or even immigration policy.  you see, for the nationalist/unionist, there's only USA#1 versus anything else. 

No, clinton makes no difference.  first of all, you're assuming the revolt is against the president, but I understood the question to be:  rebellion against the USA.  yeah, you could argue, but what if a democrat president was on the side of Nationalism?  I'd say then that the result wouldn't happen.

Lost you here, angus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bottom line, war is a sh**tty thing, and when the rebel forces come marching through town, I'll be on the streets cheering them. And when the federal forces come marching through town, I'll be on the streets cheering them. And if the Nazis come marching through town with 100,000 troops, I'll be on the streets cheering them, if I think it reduces the chance they'll raze my house, rape my family, and throw me into a large, smelly ditch. I don't want to get killed in some crap ass resistance. I want to see another day. And I'm afraid as hell of war. Call it cowardly if you like. You know Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart before his sweetheart got killed? Well that's me. That's how I feel.

[WiseGuy]

I partially agree with Supersoulty.  It would depend on the reasoning for the rebellion, but not how many other states were involved.  It would, however, depend on whether a peaceful solution had been tried.

[Platypus]

it'd have tyo be a ing good reason. I adore Melbourne, and love Victoria, but the Commonwealth of Australia is number one. As a federation of states formed from peace and in a peaceful union, secession is really not an issue here. The only chance it ever had of occuring was in Western Australia, pre-WW2 and especally pre-WW1. WA very almost didn't join the federation, actually.

Either way, there has never been a civil war here, and not really any war here. Unless you count the slaughter of aborigines...

The only real violent 'insurgence' or war of any kind was the Eureka stockade. It didn't exactly end peacefully, but the government later changed it policies and all was good again. Then again, that was in colonial times, pre-federation.

Why a state would want to leave the US over as petty an issue asabortion or gay marriage or something, as some people suggest, confounds me, and I think it's probably impossible that it would occur...right?

[angus]

Depends on whichever has the highest chance of winning.

If for the life of me I could not discern which side would win, I would go with the side where I was currently residing.

that's the difference between republicans and democrats.  really.  sure, probably many of the dems are just joking with the "my state" answers, but this has nothing to do with taxes, social security, Iraq, two men screwing each other silly, terrorism, or even immigration policy.  you see, for the nationalist/unionist, there's only USA#1 versus anything else. 

No, clinton makes no difference.  first of all, you're assuming the revolt is against the president, but I understood the question to be:  rebellion against the USA.  yeah, you could argue, but what if a democrat president was on the side of Nationalism?  I'd say then that the result wouldn't happen.

Lost you here, angus.

bommom line:  it aint' gonna happen.  One can make a reasonable case (and Statesrights often does) that the legislature of SC did nothing illegal when it chose to no longer be part of these United States.  Why, then is the USA like the mafia, in the sense that once you join, you can't quit?  Because the GOP had the balls to make it that way.  Remember, the GOP only came into existence as nationalistic ferver, god'n'glory'n'guts and wrapping oneself up in the flag, came into fashion.  I don't know whether mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord, or whether he's trampling through the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, or even whether he has loosed his frightful lightning with his terrible, swift sword.  But I do know his truth is marching on.  That truth being, just try to get out, and you'll likely bring on some wrath.  Not of any gods, assuming such things exist, but certainly of the republican party and the officers loyal to it, which is just about 90% of the officers in the military.  And everybody knows that.  Thus, it becomes an academic question.  My state?  The last state in which I voted or held a driver's license was the Great State of California.  Californians aren't into that warring schtick.  That's an Eastern thing, largely limited to states east of the Mississippi River.  You'll find plenty of monuments proudly paying homage to one side or the other in our nation's only great internal strife in places like Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, and Massachusetts, but not Out West.  And, in any case, as it used to say on the sides of German coins:  "Macht es Recht."  What's legal and what's illegal?  It's whatever the guy with the biggest gun says it is.  Everybody also knows this.  Nobody's going to revolt except a few nutjobs (i.e., libertarians who live in Montana in log cabins).  And nobody's going to join them. 

[Beet]

Depends on whichever has the highest chance of winning.

If for the life of me I could not discern which side would win, I would go with the side where I was currently residing.

that's the difference between republicans and democrats.  really.  sure, probably many of the dems are just joking with the "my state" answers, but this has nothing to do with taxes, social security, Iraq, two men screwing each other silly, terrorism, or even immigration policy.  you see, for the nationalist/unionist, there's only USA#1 versus anything else. 

No, clinton makes no difference.  first of all, you're assuming the revolt is against the president, but I understood the question to be:  rebellion against the USA.  yeah, you could argue, but what if a democrat president was on the side of Nationalism?  I'd say then that the result wouldn't happen.

Lost you here, angus.

bommom line:  it aint' gonna happen...Nobody's going to revolt except a few nutjobs (i.e., libertarians who live in Montana in log cabins).  And nobody's going to join them. 

Which is why this is such a great country.

[12th Doctor]

I can't think of a single issue that would make my state rebel that I would agree with, so, the Union.

What if the military took over and they wanted to create a junta.  I bet alot of states would revolt.

[Storebought]

If my state happened to secede from a union dictated by president-for-life Hillary Clinton, then, I'd support my state in a voting sense only. Otherwise, the union in every instance.

Now, if, say, California, decided to secede from the union to set itself up as an outpost of one-world socialism on the US border, then, by God, I'd enlist myself to kill every one of those socialist secessionist bastards and bring CA back to American liberty.

[Adam Griffin]

States are weak. They cannot support their people entirely on their own; I mean the states raised their drinking ages to 21 just to receive a few million each for transportation/roadway issues. The only state that *might* succeed in seceding and not come crying back to the Union is California, mainly because of its gigantic economy. I believe the federal government is the house of deeds to our lifestyles; state governments in general are weak. I would stand behind my Democratic, federal government because there is no reason for my state to secede; its economy is very strong (considering it is in the South) and the majority of the people share the conservative views with their old, white Republican representatives.

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

States are weak. They cannot support their people entirely on their own; I mean the states raised their drinking ages to 21 just to receive a few million each for transportation/roadway issues. The only state that *might* succeed in seceding and not come crying back to the Union is California, mainly because of its gigantic economy. I believe the federal government is the house of deeds to our lifestyles; state governments in general are weak. I would stand behind my Democratic, federal government because there is no reason for my state to secede; its economy is very strong (considering it is in the South) and the majority of the people share the conservative views with their old, white Republican representatives.

I agree and that's mainly because the federal government has taken to much control of things. States should not be punished for setting the drinking age at whatever the heck they want it to be.

[Adam Griffin]

True, but inversely, the states did not have to accept the legislation, either. Which types of roadways does the money fund anyways? Federal highways, state highways, or both?

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

True, but inversely, the states did not have to accept the legislation, either. Which types of roadways does the money fund anyways? Federal highways, state highways, or both?

From what I understand the money for roads is derived from the various gas taxes in the individual states. The money the states gets from the govt is more of a bribe incentive to work with the federal government.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

depends on what we were revolting for