Secession
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:06:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Secession
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Read below
#1
Question 1: Yes
 
#2
Question 1: No
 
#3
Question 2: Yes
 
#4
Question 2: No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Secession  (Read 2798 times)
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 18, 2017, 10:50:07 PM »

Question 1: Should states be able to secede from the United States?
Question 2: Would you ever consider supporting a secession movement in your state or region?
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,274
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2017, 08:41:01 PM »

1: Absolutely.
2: A New Jersey secession movement probably wouldn't be based on a premise I'd agree with, given the state's liberalism; so no. I would, however, support the establishment of a new independent Southern state.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2017, 08:53:44 PM »

1. No. I thought this was settled by Texas v. White, 1869. Discussions The Union between Texas and the nation "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
2. No.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2017, 10:28:25 PM »

(1) No. There is a very great difference between the natural right of the people to rebel against a tyrannical government (which is self-evident), and a constitutional right of a state to declare itself outside the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution (which is absurd). If a minority of the people may at any time dissolve the Union for their own petty or private reasons, then you do not have a government, but a debating club.

Suppose, for a moment, that such a right existed, and you are immediately confronted with a multitude of problems. First and most obviously, to recognize the legality of secession in effect admits that federal law is not binding at all: if enough people, concentrated in a particular state (and here it's worthwhile to note that what constitutes a "state" varies wildly from region to region — New York and Wyoming, for example, are about as different in history, geography, and culture as two corners of the same country can be) decide they no longer wish to follow those laws, they don't have to. Because secession would be a disaster for everyone financially, militarily, and diplomatically, the potential for it must inevitably become a weapon with which a handful of states can blackmail the rest of the nation. Indeed, that is exactly what happened in the 1850s, when the Southern slave power repeatedly used the threat of secession to exact concession after concession on slavery and a host of other matters.* This undermines the very premise of representative democracy in the same way giving the DNC and RNC access to the nuclear codes would: if anyone and everyone can declare "game over" whenever they don't get their way, the options remaining are inaction and dissolution.

(2) Also no, because (a) see above; and (b) I rather prefer the present arrangement to life in the Mike Pence Volkstaat, thank you.


*Somewhat tangentally, this is why arguments that the Civil War began because of "Northern aggression" are absurdly ahistorical, unless you consider voting for the person you want to be president an act of aggression. In the nearly three decades between the reelection of Andrew Jackson and the election of Abraham Lincoln (and especially in the twelve years immediately preceding the attack on Fort Sumter), threats of secession were the first and only tool in the Southern tool box. By 1850, the Northern states had begun to pull ahead of their Southern sisters in terms of population, industrial growth, and — critically — representation in Congress. In reality, Southern fears of electoral subjugation were wildly exaggerated and arguably did more to fuel the emergence of an anti-slavery majority than anything else; but so panicked were the ruling Southern elites that they mortgaged their continued fidelity to the Union on the condition of a total moratorium on federal legislation perceived as even remotely anti-slavery. This manifested itself in two patterns: increasingly uneven "compromises" on the slavery question that were, in effect, ransoms paid to persuade the South not to dissolve the Union; and the collapse of Northern influence within the Democratic Party, as Southern Democrats wrestled their way to power by threatening to secede if their candidate didn't get in. The third effect of this strategy was that, by 1860, the South had been threatening to loose the wolf for so long that most Northerners no longer believed them, and granted the Republicans' request to elect Lincoln and call the Southern bluff. 
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2017, 10:49:04 PM »

Of curse not. I hold contrary opinions on the European Union and the USSR, albeit for entirely opposite reasons.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2017, 11:32:05 PM »
« Edited: November 19, 2017, 11:36:01 PM by A Strange Reflection »

No/Yes (given that the first is a question about general principles and the latter is about remote hypotheticals)
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2017, 11:34:19 PM »

Yes/yes.

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2017, 11:45:02 PM »

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.
For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2017, 07:33:52 AM »

Absolutely/No
Logged
SoLongAtlas
VirginiaModerate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,219
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2017, 08:06:12 AM »

No; No. Secessionists are traitors and deserve a traitor's reward.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2017, 08:57:39 AM »

Rock solid NO on both questions.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2017, 09:07:57 AM »
« Edited: November 20, 2017, 09:15:42 AM by Senator Scott🍂 »

Yes/not sure.  I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Not being a world superpower (or being a far weaker superpower) would be a bonus, in my opinion.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2017, 09:49:16 AM »

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2017, 11:05:57 AM »

It depends upon the circumstances.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2017, 11:21:13 AM »

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.
Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2017, 11:22:53 AM »

Yes/Yes

To those voting no on the first, is that just with regards to unilateral secession?

1. No. I thought this was settled by Texas v. White, 1869. Discussions The Union between Texas and the nation "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

I would agree that unilateral secession is in violation of the Constitution. However, could it not be reasoned that the people voting for an independence referendum are in fact voting for revolution? Otherwise, I would just say that it would require an Act of Congress to approve secession.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2017, 11:30:52 AM »

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.
Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2017, 12:08:04 PM »

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.
Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?

The key is to decimate or absorb the subcultures, not surrender to them.

Counterculture > Subculture
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,072
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2017, 12:34:10 PM »

Secession is treason, just like it was in the 1860s
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2017, 01:47:28 PM »

1. Yes, and the right to take away government's ability to govern always will be the peoples.

2. It depends on the nation I'm seceding from. The current one I live in, no.
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,234


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2017, 02:15:49 PM »

1. No. I support Unionism above all else.

2. Welll for Long Island particularly, I wouldn't be so mad if say the island seceded from New York to become its own state, but from the union no. And the same thing goes for the rest of New York as well.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2017, 02:29:13 PM »

No; No. Secessionists are traitors and deserve a traitor's reward.
This.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2017, 02:43:12 PM »

Were any of the 27 yes voters on question 1 supporters of the Confederate States seceding?
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2017, 02:59:24 PM »

No and No (sane, patriot, not a traitor, etc)
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2017, 05:57:45 PM »

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.
Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?
Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 15 queries.