Secession

Good link.... Quite an interesting topic actually. I found these comments speaking on the Czech and Slovak Republics especially interesting.

"both succeeding governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics."


Is that all it really comes down to from an International perspective?
Why did the united States not threaten physical violence upon these people when they have used/would use physical violence upon the people of the u.S. for doing the same thing?

 

"Can" or "may legally?" The states can try to secede. How? Send a note to Congress and the president? And if it is ignored, then what?

Follow the money. It goes from the taxpayer to Washington to the state. Say Georgia tries to secede. The Georgia govt stops cashing US govt checks? Then what?

Or would Georgia try to deport all US govt employees? Are not they also Georgia citizens?

Or what if the Congress says, "OK, first pay your share of the national debt?"

The devil is in the details.

 

If a state secedes then the Federal Government has no authority over them.

Incidentally this country endorsed the secession of many states from the Soviet Union and embraced the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, even to the point of military action under Clinton.

 

In regard to the 'National Debt' (which really isn't but I wont argue that right now) you would first have to figure out if a state received more in federal dollars than it sent to the federal gov.. I think you'd be surprised at the states the Federal Gov would owe money to if they decided to split.. They would no more recognize that they owed the individual state in that situation than they do now.

 

I can't say that I'd be against seceding, but I don't wish to make that jump.

My goal wouldn't be to dissolve our nation, but to put it back the way it was (or should be). My question is, could a single state survive on its own & be prosperous at the same time?

 

On the point of restored Constitutional Gov.. I agree totally... I'm just speaking from a curiosity junkies perspective. The funny thing to me, when arguing historic US secessionist models most think of the time preceding the 'Civil War'. The 'Civil War' was neither the first or the largest,percentage wise, of American secessionist movements.

Anyhoot, as for a single state surviving, that would depend on the Federal Governments reaction. If they let them go then there are several that could make it economically.

 

I think ever state could make it on its own as long as freedom of interstate travel and shipping. Some would have to become more productive. The richest nations per capita have zilch natural resources. Japan, for example.

 

Another thing I forgot about too, if a state seceded & the federal government didn't like it, I think that a coastal state would only have the advantage to surviving. If a land locked state seceded, the roadways could easily cut off leading to that state. A coastal state would have the advantage of receiving shipments from boats.

 

It would be key for multiple states to form together to have any hope of success. I think I might rather throw some out. NY, Mass, and Calf for starters.

 

I have often joked that I would love to see San Francisco sink into the Pacific Ocean.

 

Except for the state income tax and high cost of living, San Francisco would be my #1 choice to live. Next would be downtown Manhattan. These days a working middle class person can't afford to live in a real city. One gots to be rich or on welfare.

 

I propose 4 nations a starting place:

1. west of the rockies

2. from the rockies to the mississippi

3 & 4. east coast divided by the mason-dixon line.