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.
Secession and its legality really only matter if the rest of the union is willing to wage another civil war to keep the secessionist states in. Personally I feel States joined this union voluntarily, so as free states populated by free people they can choose to leave.
What I'm saying is, when you say the states joined the union voluntarily, that could only realistically apply to the thirteen colonies. The remaining states were just territories that the US government organized into states. Did Oklahoma make a choice to join the Union? Not by any reasonable definition.
Moreover, it isn't as if any state is by any definition an "identifiable community". What is the difference between a Kansas and a Nebraskan? Or an Oklahoman and a Texan? Or a Georgian and a South Carolinian?
The states of America aren't the equivalent of European Nations. And within most states, you have a multitude of communities. Which often have far more in common with other states, than their own state.
In the case of the Civil War. Virginia seceded from the Union, and then part of Virginia seceded from the rest of Virginia, to form West Virginia.
If California is truly a separate and unique community from the rest of the United States. If it were to secede, then it could secede as a single community.
But if California is not a truly separate and unique community, then the result of secession, would be anarchy or despotism.
Lets pretend the coast wanted to secede, would the rest of California want to go with it? As Ted Cruz once said, "California has more Republicans than any other state". And if you look at the county-by-county map, you'll see that outside of the coasts, California is largely Republican.
And if California's interior didn't want to go with California, would we make them go? What about Eastern Oregon and Washington State? Or honestly, almost any rural area in every state in the union.
The moment you allow secession to occur, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.
If a state like Texas or California were to secede, the Union would cease to exist within weeks. And Texas and California would themselves collapse within weeks.
Of course, its never going to happen, because you're basically talking about completely collapsing the entire US economy. And the moment this country became unstable, the forces of reaction(IE despotism), would sweep in to return "order".
This country is a death pact. You ain't getting out without taking the rest of the country down with you.
The east and west coast states pay far more in federal taxes than do the central states At the same time, the central states and mid west do not share the same values as those on the coasts.
Should the coasts simply succeed and leave the mid west and central states to themselves?
I think you meant secede....yes, they should do that.
While it is tempting to imagine that splitting up the nation into the Red States of America and the Blue States of America would solve this never-ending bickering, it would put the Red States at a distinct economic disadvantage.
"The “blue” states currently subsidize the “red” – eight of the 10 states that took in the most net federal dollars are solidly Republican, and all 10 of the states that pay the most net dollars into the federal system are solidly Democratic."
"The Blue States of America would end up with the lion’s share of economic capacity – we’d have California, New York and Chicago, just for starters."
Then there's national defense and military spending.
Blue States would likely want to spend less on guns and more on butter. There could be a treaty agreement for common defense spending at say half or a third of current levels, then each new country could "maintain their own “expeditionary forces,” based overseas, that would be barred from operating in North America. If one of the new countries wants to play World Police, it can do so and bear those costs."
The Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia & Florida are proud to be American states.
They also have more coastline than the remaining states on the Atlantic. Take away Maine, which gave an electoral vote to Trump, it's even less than that.
Isn't it ironic that when Democrats, which controlled the Southern states in the 1800s didn't get their way, seceeded from the USA. Now they want to do it again.
Red States of America could outlaw abortion, make birth control all but impossible to obtain, enforce strict guidelines for who uses which bathroom, do away with public schools, eliminate all environmental regulations... they could set up their own paradise right here on earth.
But at what cost to their economic future?
Blue states are stronger in technology, media, and finance.
Red states are stronger in agriculture, manufacturing, and resource extraction.
Given the role information and technology plays in economic growth these days, that's not a strong position for RSA.
There would undoubtably be trade between the two nations, but it is also likely that Mexico could easily underbid RSA in agriculture and manufacturing, and perhaps resource extraction as well.
Does anyone imagine that technology, media, and finance would migrate to the RSA? Since the Bathroom Bill, NC is having a difficult time attracting top notch IT talent. Imagine if it was one of the paradise-here-on-earth RSA.
I would hate to see our nation divided in two. But as the Brexit fever picks up steam, we may be looking at exactly that.
It would take an Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 of 50). There would likely be a lot of blue voters who go for it, so I wouldn't rule it out.
This garbage about paying more taxes than receiving was started by the tax foundation and liberal web sites, they dont talk about what federal spending really is which is primarily military spending followed by retiree spending . If certain states have more military veterans, military bases and are growing with retirees receiving social security etc., of course they receive alot of federal spending .
Why dont we talk about the breakdown of which masculinist states produce the most military and where our energy comes from? Most of the southern coast has more in common with Montana,Wyoming, Idaho and the midwest politically than we do with NYC DC, Seattle,Bay Area LA county, most of Washington Oregon and northern California (Jefferson) is red as well. There is far too much power in a few liberal coastal metros and that power could be dispersed easily, its not natural resources or energy.
The media invented the term flyover country. Hollywood and Manhattan and DC doesn't need to have all that media and financial and government spending power if red states would wake up and really embrace populism and nationalism instead of conservatism and mainstream republican BS
When a person finds themselves totally befuddled by the real world they screech about the "media". Ever notice?
While it is tempting to imagine that splitting up the nation into the Red States of America and the Blue States of America would solve this never-ending bickering, it would but the Red States at a distinct economic disadvantage.
"The “blue” states currently subsidize the “red” – eight of the 10 states that took in the most net federal dollars are solidly Republican, and all 10 of the states that pay the most net dollars into the federal system are solidly Democratic."
"The Blue States of America would end up with the lion’s share of economic capacity – we’d have California, New York and Chicago, just for starters."
Then there's national defense and military spending.
Blue States would likely want to spend less on guns and more on butter. There could be a treaty agreement for common defense spending at say half or a third of current levels, then each new country could "maintain their own “expeditionary forces,” based overseas, that would be barred from operating in North America. If one of the new countries wants to play World Police, it can do so and bear those costs."
This dried out argument...
First off the blue states would starve to death. Your food, energy, and water typically comes from the red "subsidized" parts of the blue states or entire red states themselves. While your "economic capacity" of selling software and hedge funds might give you some buying power, you'll quickly realize it's the rural areas subsidizing you in terms of the actual necessities for life. Just because a hedge fund manager makes more than a farmer doesn't mean the farmer is the moocher in the relationship.
This entire argument is useless anyway. The country was never intended to get along, it was intended to ban together for the greater good. We collectively have large economic, military, and diplomatic power because we're one large country, not a a bunch of tiny ones.
The individual differences between Texas and Washington are already enshrined in states rights. If you don't want Texas to tell you what to do, don't tell Texas what to do. It really is that simple.
While it is tempting to imagine that splitting up the nation into the Red States of America and the Blue States of America would solve this never-ending bickering, it would but the Red States at a distinct economic disadvantage.
If you actually understood the economy, you would realize that the primary driver of our economy, is finance. These rich cities are massive financial hubs, dependent on market and real-estate speculation(IE Wall-Street and the Federal Reserve). The primary exception is Washington D.C., which is a government city.
What exactly do you think would happen if the United States broke up? You are assuming that everything would stay more-or-less as it is. But nothing would stay the same.
The moment there was a split, both sides would begin to "protect" their economy. Both being forced to create a new currency, and to protect their industry from competition from the other.
As long as the "Blue States" could maintain the US Dollar as the "World's Reserve Currency", then they could run massive trade deficits and invest heavily in foreign markets. But in reality, a divided and weakened United States would no longer be able to maintain a world military and financial empire.
The US Dollar(or whatever it would then be called), would be either replaced by the Euro, or by the Yuan, as the world's reserve currency.
The massive American corporations would have their holdings split, with each side being in a relative trade-war with each other. Silicon-Valley technology companies and Hollywood, would lose half of their market overnight.
If we're only talking economics, both the "blue states" and the "red states" are significantly better-off by staying one country. Which is exactly why no one of any real importance ever advocates for secession.
Why would Microsoft, or Apple, or Disney want to split the country up? Do they want to throw away billions of dollars and collapse the economy?
As for "blue-states" subsidizing other states. This makes as much sense as saying that Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzhen subsidizes the rest of China.
What actually happens in China, is that through government policies, such as subsidies and protections, or direct control, manufacturing and other businesses were brought into those cities, with the raw materials being brought in from the countryside.
China would be nowhere without its countryside. It would starve to death. Both its people and its industry.
Obviously China doesn't want to lose its countryside. Though I'm sure that on paper, its countryside is being heavily subsidized by the big Chinese cities.
And you could likewise argue that the countryside is better-off because of the industry in Beijing and Shanghai.
Not only is America not going to secede, but the world is slowly "coming-together", because of the global system of trade, and the need for corporations, and nations, to have access to the entire world's resources, markets, and labor.
With that said, I have long been in favor of secession, but not for economic reasons. I believe Americans are becoming increasingly immoral. A bunch of soulless materialists.
And there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. And voting ain't going to change anything.
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.
