Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Southwest is filling up with Mexican immigrants, some (perhaps even the majority) of whom believe that region belongs rightfully to Mexico. It was, after all, taken from Mexico a while back.
It wasn't taken from Mexico. Some of it was was purchased in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, but most of it was won in the Mexican-American War, and acquired when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed.
Interestingly, the US paid $15 million dollars to Mexico as part of the Treaty and assumed $3.25 million of Mexican debt owed to US citizens. Also, all Mexicans within the affected area were given the choice to either relocate to within Mexico's new boundaries, or become US citizens with full civil rights - over 90 chose US citizenship.
There is no way (with our current constitution) for any state to secede from the union.
Do you not understand that any state that would choose to secede would be choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution?
Also, the Constitution itself does not forbid (or even mention) secession. The prohibition on secession was created by Chief Justice Chase in his majority opinion in Texas v. White.
Born and raised Southerner and I would adamantly oppose secession. It is an absurd delusion in the first place, and I always laugh when a self-proclaimed patriot lends their support to secession.
My favorites are remarks like this:
By all means look up what states are considered "makers" and what states are considered "takers." The vast majority of Southern states are the most heavily dependent on the federal government (see:2015) and consequently seem to be the largest beneficiaries of "socialistic policies."
American misconceptions on what constitutes "true capitalism" are equally humorous at this point, especially when American Capitalism has historically been far more influenced by the likes of the protectionist/interventionist economic theories of Hamilton or List than it was by the laissez-faire of classical economists like Smith or Ricardo, and has prospered as a consequence.
Then you'd be in favor of "taker" states leaving the Union?
Protectionism and demagoguery have long been part of the national political landscape, but at the local level, pro-capitalistic attitudes seem to be more prevalent in conservative areas. Note, for example, the $15/hour minimum wage movement which is mainly happening in very liberal locales such as Seattle, New York, and California.
Obamacare was rammed through by liberals in the dominant blue states. Probably every red state opposed the law, which is considered a top-down, centralized authoritarian attempt at forcing universal healthcare on the populace.
Another way of looking at the taker/maker picture is to consider who has been enlisting and fighting the nation's wars in the past few decades. Soldiers disproportionately come out of rural and small town America, and these regions have suffered disproportionate injuries and loss of life as a result. From that perspective, contemptuous put downs of the conservative regions ring hollow. Lazy, cowardly blue state liberals looking down their noses at brave, patriotic men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for an ungrateful country.
The lesson here is not that some regions ought to secede. Rather, it's that Americans need to find a way to come together. The universal draft, near-universal participation in church, and a shared sense of destiny once held the country together. I favor a universal draft of some sort, and perhaps through better education we can
at least try to imbue young Americans with a sense of national identity and shared values.
It's this kind of attitude that causes the minority to call for secession.... Folks who come to the south for the benefits of living in the south and then bash it and wish it were like the undesirable place they came from. It is completely irritating and makes one want to tell them to go back to where they came from if they can't appreciate the area for what it is.
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure the northerners who have moved down there have neither the ability not the inclination to bring Chicago or Boston winters down there.
I think the vast majority of us in the south would be against it and I am born and raised southern with ancestors who fought for the confederacy. It's a very vocal minority wishing to glorify our ugly past.
This here ^^^
As for me NO I don't care of they do or not . The people that go on about it are not the south that I want to hang around with anyway . I am 8th gen Texan with some lines coming from Ga Miss and Tenn during the Civil war with a LARGE amount of my relatives that fought for all of those states during that time . It's very difficult for me to live there anyway due to my "outlandish political views " . I have lived EVERYWHERE though. I loved living in Europe and I really have loved living in Seattle these past few years ,, its cool most all year , what a relief . Plus it's really diverse .
Do you not understand that any state that would choose to secede would be choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution?
Also, the Constitution itself does not forbid (or even mention) secession. The prohibition on secession was created by Chief Justice Chase in his majority opinion in Texas v. White.
And it was finalized with a bloody, 4 year war. There is no *legal* way for a state to secede from the USA at this point in history, regardless of what arm-chair constitutionalists think. The closest thing is Texas, who's constitution specifically says it can split itself into 5 states (which would give them more power in the Senate). But that doesn't let them legally leave the union.
Beyond that, any state that left would give up any benefits they have by being part of the US. For all the poor states (most of the ones who might want to secede) that means loosing net income from the feds. But even beyond that (and beyond the political side of it): They'd have to set up their own highway funding, school funding, embassies, new trade relations (with the USA and the rest of the world), new border protection and customs offices, etc.
With Scotland (the OP's example), at least Scotland and England are roughly the same size/population/etc, and Scotland would likely have joined up with the EU separately once they left the UK. They also have their own industry and all kinds of other things left over from being a nation for so long. Only Texas (or CA, but they wouldn't want to leave) *might* have enough economic power to survive outside the US, but it'd still be a stretch long term, as the US govt would immediately blacklist them economically.
But beyond all that, you even say it: "choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution"... States simply do not have that choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
