NationStates Jolt Archive

Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so

Why or why not?

Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so

Why or why not?

The question of secession was decided with the Civil War.

Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so

Why or why not?

This reminds me of the conflict with have with Catalonia and the Basque Country. These provinces want to secede and the Spanish government won´t allow it. As a firm believer in national identities and coming from a province that wants to be recognized as autonomous, I don´t think there would be a problem with states seceding as long as they meet the points you stated. I think these said states (provinces) have a right to independence as long as they want it and meet certain criteria. I know though, that this kind of break with the rest of the nation can be somewhat difficult, but it can be done. Of course, I´m basing my views on personal and national experience. I´m aware that the state of the union in the US won´t allow for something like this to happen.

Perhaps if they compensated the United States for all existing government-owned facilities and infrastructure and repaid the federal government for all federal money paid in excess of the amount paid by the state to the government in taxes. Otherwise, they're just stealing; they can't simply reap the benefits of union with the United States and then decide to leave when things turn unfavorable, taking all of those benefits with them.

Yes. I'm not sure why it would have to be a state either, but you sort of answered that with your provision that people could secede from the new state.

Otherwise, they're just stealing; they can't simply reap the benefits of union with the United States and then decide to leave when things turn unfavorable, taking all of those benefits with them.Are the benefits totally one-sided?

Are the benefits totally one-sided?

If they're paying more in, they should be compensated (e.g., if California were to secede, I would find it perfectly reasonable for them to receive compensation for the amount they have paid out to support the rest of the country).

In most states, A lot of land is owned by the Government. So If said state had the money to pull a reverse Eminent Domain on them, (which they couldn't with out going into major debt) the state would only be allowed to keep a tiny bit of the state they wanted to take with them.

No, it would set a dangerous precedent for everyone.

Perhaps if they compensated the United States for all existing government-owned facilities and infrastructure and repaid the federal government for all federal money paid in excess of the amount paid by the state to the government in taxes. Otherwise, they're just stealing; they can't simply reap the benefits of union with the United States and then decide to leave when things turn unfavorable, taking all of those benefits with them.

That is the best argument I've seen against seccession, and will be utilizing it in the future. No offense. :)

I don't think the civil war solved this question.Cuz remember the Union forced the Confederate states to rejoin them.I myself born and raised in a former confederate state(I live in North Carolina)I've studied alot into this.I think that as far as seceding the confederate states should've been able to legally do it.A state/province should be allowed to become independent.I was really happy when I heard that Kosovo declared its freedom from Serbia,a move I've been supporting for years!

I don't think the civil war solved this question.Cuz remember the Union forced the Confederate states to rejoin them.I myself born and raised in a former confederate state(I live in North Carolina)I've studied alot into this.I think that as far as seceding the confederate states should've been able to legally do it.A state/province should be allowed to become independent.I was really happy when I heard that Kosovo declared its freedom from Serbia,a move I've been supporting for years!

Exactly, the Union forced the Confederates back into the Union. The Federal Government has already declared its stance: to preserve the Union at all costs.

edit: I was also born in the South, and know there is still resentment about the Civil War simmering in many people's hearts and minds.

I don't think the civil war solved this question.Cuz remember the Union forced the Confederate states to rejoin them.I myself born and raised in a former confederate state(I live in North Carolina)I've studied alot into this.I think that as far as seceding the confederate states should've been able to legally do it.A state/province should be allowed to become independent.I was really happy when I heard that Kosovo declared its freedom from Serbia,a move I've been supporting for years!

Execpt the Conferderates stole government property. They committed an act of treason before the war started. Where do you think the souths weapons came from in the first months and year of the war? Government Armories they broke into and raided.

edit: I was also born in the South, and know there is still resentment about the Civil War simmering in many people's hearts and minds.

After all these years? Damn. That´s what I call holding a grudge.

I don't think the civil war solved this question.Cuz remember the Union forced the Confederate states to rejoin them.I myself born and raised in a former confederate state(I live in North Carolina)I've studied alot into this.I think that as far as seceding the confederate states should've been able to legally do it.A state/province should be allowed to become independent.I was really happy when I heard that Kosovo declared its freedom from Serbia,a move I've been supporting for years!

They were going to leave to keep slavery. Do you support slavery? Because it amounts to the same thing.

Exactly, the Union forced the Confederates back into the Union. The Federal Government has already declared its stance: to preserve the Union at all costs.

edit: I was also born in the South, and know there is still resentment about the Civil War simmering in many people's hearts and minds.

Get over it. The war was OVER A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Get over it. The war was OVER A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO.

We'll whoop your Yankee ass in round two! :p


*struts off humming 'I wish I was in Dixie dooda, dooda*

We'll whoop your Yankee ass in round two! :p


*struts off humming 'I wish I was in Dixie dooda, dooda*

I'm not a yankee, my state wasn't even around when that war happened.

143 years, actually. </nitpick>

But I am a New Yorker who fully supports the secession of Texas. >_>

I'd have to say no, because the last attempt was just a horrible mess.

The South shall rise again. We will use grits and biscuits with gravy and fried chicken. Fear the rednecks.

The South shall rise again. We will use grits and biscuits with gravy and fried chicken. Fear the rednecks.

By making the rest of us fat and lazy? Damn you Colonel Sanders!

I'm not a yankee, my state wasn't even around when that war happened.

lulz

I'd have to say no, because the last attempt was just a horrible mess.

Agreed.

Even if a secession was totally justifiable, I think it'd spark another war. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

By making the rest of us fat and lazy? Damn you Colonel Sanders!

Apparently the Colonel is a big thing over in Japan.

We're spreading our influence.

And mind-control devices.

Apparently the Colonel is a big thing over in Japan.

We're spreading our influence.

And mind-control devices.

Exellent..... *cackles evily*

Exellent..... *cackles evily*

And if Japan is anything like Higurashi no naku koro ni (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A34dcfHnCMY&feature=related) makes it out to be, the north is fucked.

The question of secession was decided with the Civil War.

Yes and no. The question of whether the US government recognises a right of secession, peaceful or otherwise, may have been decided. The constitution does not address the question at all, thus there is no clear right or prohibition of secession. As far as legal rulings, in Texas v. White, the case that decided this, SOCUS's ruling states:
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States 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.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

This makes multual secssession legal.

(A nice discussion of the legal issues may be found here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html). It's a rather interesting read.)

But the question at hand, as I understand it, is should states have a right to seccession.

I find it hypocritical for a nation founded on the concept that it's a right "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" and to then turn around and not recognise, or even denounce, that right.

(I'll attempt avoid getting in to the whole hijack re slavery.)

After all these years? Damn. That´s what I call holding a grudge.

Nah, that's nothing. Most national and intra-national grudges are much older. - France and the UK, Japan and Korea, the whole mess that's the Balkans, the list goes on and on of grudges that are many centuries old.

Apparently the Colonel is a big thing over in Japan.

We're spreading our influence.

And mind-control devices.

Yep. Can't have Japanese Xmas dinner w/o KFC. :D (And then there's the whole Hanshin Tigers and the curse of the Colonel...)

not just states nor just states and colonies. certain those teritories not contiguous, and those previously indipentently soverign.

hawaii for example ought to be a nation and allowed to be. likewise puerto rico.

alaska ought to be part of canada, or part of a new pacific states nation, taking yukon and b.c. from canada and washington state, oregon and the northern half of california from the existing u.s., along with perhapse portions of idaho and nevada.

this whole bussiness of super power soverignty being inviolable is illogical.

=^^=
.../\...

Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so

Why or why not?

As long as "support by the people" was a clear majority and not just 51%. Other than that I think as long as the conditions you've listed are followed there is no reason not to.

not just states nor just states and colonies. certain those teritories not contiguous, and those previously indipentently soverign.

hawaii for example ought to be a nation and allowed to be. likewise puerto rico.

alaska ought to be part of canada, or part of a new pacific states nation, taking yukon and b.c. from canada and washington state, oregon and the northern half of california from the existing u.s., along with perhapse portions of idaho and nevada.

this whole bussiness of super power soverignty being inviolable is illogical.

=^^=
.../\...

Cascadia?

Too many resources to lose honestly. Throw Alberta in there and that would be one kick-ass, rich-ass country. Then invaded by some other country because we have Weapons of.... Mass Monie- DESTRUCTION!

not just states nor just states and colonies. certain those teritories not contiguous, and those previously indipentently soverign.

hawaii for example ought to be a nation and allowed to be. likewise puerto rico.

alaska ought to be part of canada, or part of a new pacific states nation, taking yukon and b.c. from canada and washington state, oregon and the northern half of california from the existing u.s., along with perhapse portions of idaho and nevada.

this whole bussiness of super power soverignty being inviolable is illogical.

Always a fun exercise, how to divide up the US.

Damn you Colonel Sanders!Ever hear his attempt at making a commercial?
Painfully hilarious.

Yes, if certain conditions were met.

The conditions:

The state must be Texas or otherwise conservative or located in the Bible Belt.

Yes, if certain conditions were met.

The conditions:

The state must be Texas or otherwise conservative or located in the Bible Belt.

lmao

They were going to leave to keep slavery. Do you support slavery? Because it amounts to the same thing.

Dude,of course I don't support slavery,I'm black!And no it doesn't amount to the samething,what I mean is that the CSA had the right to secede and defend there cause.Plus even though the Union didn't have slavery it wasn't any better for blacks there we were still discriminated against.

Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so

Yes, I would support it.

Exactly, the Union forced the Confederates back into the Union.

I wonder if we could force them to leave again?

Been tried; see results.

considering Russia's Chechnya fiasco I think the US wouldn't be able to do much about it (though odds are it wouldn't be too much of a bother to just kill off the adult population just like with Chechnya)

course I support peoples right to rule themselves if it gets them off, at the very least it will be interesting

I'm all for states rights, and increased state autonomy. But not state independence.

My unabashed Confederate sympathies notwithstanding, my loyalties lie with the United States as it is understood today.

Because, quite frankly, The US is in the best position geo-strategically to maintain and wield an enormous amount of power, and I'm quite glad we have it and that I am not on the opposite end of the big, pointy stick.

Most definitely YES

I have often hoped that the Cajun states could once again be independant and regain that Cajun charm they had in abundance back in the old days before the influx of american ideals mixed in there

Been tried; see results.

most every modern nationstate?

quite frankly, The US is in the best position geo-strategically to maintain and wield an enormous amount of power, and I'm quite glad we have it and that I am not on the opposite end of the big, pointy stick.

so what your saying is your too scared to stand on your own

most every modern nationstate?

do you [I]want another America on our hands!?

at this rate we will never get the empire back :(

Not only would I support secession of any of the states of the United States for any reason, I would happily enlist or seek commission in their army if they had to fight against the Federal government.

Not only would I support secession of any of the states of the United States for any reason, I would happily enlist or seek commission in their army if they had to fight against the Federal government.

yeah but what happens if they wanted to create their own govenrment...or are from Kentucky!

edit: duuude I so don't remember making this post

do you want another America on our hands!?

at this rate we will never get the empire back :(

i'm still looking forward to the reunification of mongolia.

Been tried; see results.

:::Looks at several sucessful secessions - Colonies from England, Texas from Mexico, Norway from Sweden, West Virginia from Virginia, Maine from Mass., various states from Yugoslavia, Czech Republic and Slovakia, Various states from the USSR...:::

Some needed violent divorces, some pulled it off peacefully, but there are some decent results out there.

Been tried; see results.
No it hasn't:
Provided that the following conditions were met:

1) Said state had a demonstrated commitment to human rights
2) Secession was supported by the people
3) Those who wanted to remain part of the U.S., or secede from the new state, had the option to do so
I can't say I can oppose the idea, but don't see what benefit could come of it to the state that left.

so what your saying is your too scared to stand on your own [insert European superiority remark involving how its not 1989]


Forsooth, he speaks truly enough.

i'm still looking forward to the reunification of mongolia.

At it's greatest extent... ;)

Hello, Polish Mongolia! Welcome to the 2008 Beijing Mongolian Olympics!

:::Looks at several sucessful secessions - Colonies from England, Texas from Mexico, Norway from Sweden, West Virginia from Virginia, Maine from Mass., various states from Yugoslavia, Czech Republic and Slovakia, Various states from the USSR...:::

Some needed violent divorces, some pulled it off peacefully, but there are some decent results out there.

Except the reference, in context of this particular post, is to secession from the United States. Been tried [American Civil War]; see results [failure]

So the examples of other states seceding in different national contexts is, therefore, irrelevant.

Except the reference, in context of this particular post, is to secession from the United States. Been tried [American Civil War]; see results [failure]

So the examples of other states seceding in different national contexts is, therefore, irrelevant.

Not at all. Especially the reference to 1775/6...

As I pointed out earlier, if the various states unilateral secession from the UK can be justified, then it is hypocritical to deny that self same right from the US. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

No, because I like the US the way it is, and we don't want a whole bunch of different states to have to deal with.

Not at all. Especially the reference to 1775/6...

As I pointed out earlier, if the various states unilateral secession from the UK can be justified, then it is hypocritical to deny that self same right from the US. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Remember, the topic of the thread is secession from the United States. The only example of that was the American Civil War.

The way I look at it, if the federal government can not adequately provide for a state, is abusing its powers, or is generally acting as a malign force within the community, I see the need to secede.

I never agreed to be a citizen of this country. Nobody asked me about the laws that were passed. Frankly I don't like the lawyers, judges, cops, and politicians that, for all intents and purposes, serve as the "face" of our government.

When the very thing that vowed to protect my freedom starts to take it away, it's time to make a change.

Forsooth, he speaks truly enough.

I'm confused, you seem to have some big nation that you are deeply scared of :confused:

No, because I like the US the way it is, and we don't want a whole bunch of different states to have to deal with.

but think if we divide the states up we can gobble them up into the E.U without too much power falling to one state

world domination and such

Remember, the topic of the thread is secession from the United States. The only example of that was the American Civil War.

however the US is not magical and still subject to the same forces as the rest of the planet

thus you must see that secessions in other parts of the world hold some relevance

but think if we divide the states up we can gobble them up into the E.U without too much power falling to one state

world domination and such
As much as I love the EU being pointlessly large (I don't, in the slightest, we should have kept to 15 rich countries instead of 27 mostly-rich-ish ones), going across the Atlantic and possibly over the USA's coastal states might be pushing it.

Remember, the topic of the thread is secession from the United States. The only example of that was the American Civil War.

Again, the States' secession from the Crown set the example. If the colonies could legitimately "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", then the same rights should be granted to them in regards to the United States. To deny the right to dissolve onerous ties to the constituant states, when the very foundations of the United States was that exact same clame, is to clame that the Declaration of Indepenence is illigetimate. Will you, much less the vast majority of US citizens, welcome the return of the rule of HRH Elizabeth II?

I'm confused, you seem to have some big nation that you are deeply scared of :confused:


however the US is not magical and still subject to the same forces as the rest of the planet

thus you must see that secessions in other parts of the world hold some relevance

To your first point: No, I understood the post to which I was responding to read "if an individual state were to secede, it could rightly fear an attack by a more powerful nation that would not have previously done so because it was a part of the United States." If I'm wrong, I rescind my previous remark. I do not wish to convey that I am simply afraid of some big bad country. Though I would add, he who is without fear is either foolish or ignorant. It is not being fearless that makes one brave, but how one acts in the face of fear.

I can see your second point, and the point I was trying to make is probably moot now anyway. SO yes, secessions do have relevance, especially when considering the justification for doing so in the United States today.

I support self-determination everywhere, so yes.

If you guys want to make sure that Texas gets out, just elect Clinton. I wouldn't go so far as to say her election would cause a majority support for secession, but we would be a lot closer. (not my personal opinion on Clinton by they way, just what I've observed)

Again, the States' secession from the Crown set the example. If the colonies could legitimately "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", then the same rights should be granted to them in regards to the United States. To deny the right to dissolve onerous ties to the constituant states, when the very foundations of the United States was that exact same clame, is to clame that the Declaration of Indepenence is illigetimate. Will you, much less the vast majority of US citizens, welcome the return of the rule of HRH Elizabeth II?

You seem to have forgotten the peace treaty at the end of war of secession of 1776 that recognized the colonies as independent of the crown. The DoI is very similar in this regard to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863--a statement of intent, not effect.

however the US is not magical and still subject to the same forces as the rest of the planet

thus you must see that secessions in other parts of the world hold some relevance

Indeed so.

The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

As much as I love the EU being pointlessly large (I don't, in the slightest, we should have kept to 15 rich countries instead of 27 mostly-rich-ish ones), going across the Atlantic and possibly over the USA's coastal states might be pushing it.

its just a matter of some very good geography/bullshitting :p

If you guys want to make sure that Texas gets out, just elect Clinton. I wouldn't go so far as to say her election would cause a majority support for secession, but we would be a lot closer. (not my personal opinion on Clinton by they way, just what I've observed)

I'd like to see how far Texas would get without the majority of 30-something women!

You seem to have forgotten the peace treaty at the end of war of secession of 1776 that recognized the colonies as independent of the crown. The DoI is very similar in this regard to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863--a statement of intent, not effect.

Not at all. The Emancipation Proclamation is an entierly different matter.* The DoI was promulgated on the fundamental right of peoples to dissolve their political union. To turn around and say that the same can't be done by members of the United States, is hypocracy, no ifs, ands, or buts. Retaining the unwilling memebers of the union at bayonet point was a betrayal of the foundations of the United States.

*The EP was legally best justified as eminent domain. Lincoln's suggestion of buying and freeing the slaves would have been a much better solution.

Why don't we let everything secede from everything until we have 10,000 separate entities. Come on people, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Why don't we let everything secede from everything until we have 10,000 separate entities. Come on people, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

And it will be drawn, around actual communities rather then imagined ones. People who think alike will naturally congregate amongst themselves, forming a community. True, you could end up with states made up of no more then 5 people, but because this state wouldn't be able to provide for its inhabitants, slowly but surely it would die, leaving only the communities that not only can support their citizens, but provide for their own safety.

In effect a world wide secession would be one of the most beneficial things that could happen to us.

Not at all. The Emancipation Proclamation is an entierly different matter.* The DoI was promulgated on the fundamental right of peoples to dissolve their political union. To turn around and say that the same can't be done by members of the United States, is hypocracy, no ifs, ands, or buts. Retaining the unwilling memebers of the union at bayonet point was a betrayal of the foundations of the United States.

*The EP was legally best justified as eminent domain. Lincoln's suggestion of buying and freeing the slaves would have been a much better solution.

The DoI was founded on those principles, certainly, but the Constitution was not. Hypocrisy is one thing; the fact of the matter remains that, by your admission, we betrayed our founding principles and are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. Anything is certainly justifiable, and secession moreso by appealing to the same ideals that enabled us to break away from the UK; but Constitutionally it is not.

*At the risk of hijacking the thread: For Lincoln to buy and free the slaves would require a de facto recognition of Southern independence, which never occurred (though it was treated as such after the war), and this would have worked against Lincoln's stance of holding the Union together, rather than rejoining two separate halves.

And it will be drawn, around actual communities rather then imagined ones. People who think alike will naturally congregate amongst themselves, forming a community. True, you could end up with states made up of no more then 5 people, but because this state wouldn't be able to provide for its inhabitants, slowly but surely it would die, leaving only the communities that not only can support their citizens, but provide for their own safety.

In effect a world wide secession would be one of the most beneficial things that could happen to us.

And then some nations will inevitably be more powerful, and seek to gain territory/slaves/resources, and expand at the expense of other communities...and alliances will form, coalitions, and documents will be written granting authority, and curtailing it, and...oh wait, this sounds an awful lot like history...

And it will be drawn, around actual communities rather then imagined ones. People who think alike will naturally congregate amongst themselves, forming a community.

the main danger i see of just letting communities 'naturally develop' is the formation insular groupings of racist slavers and the like, and places that suck preventing their children from leaving. pretty much i sorta demand a broad spectrum set of basic rights as a condition of such a system, especially including a right to free movement between communities.

To commit such acts would make that community detestable, and I highly doubt it would survive for long. Imagine, if you will, if the Crips got wind of a slaver community. Such folks would be removed from the gene pool forcibly.

As to rights, they will be there, but it will be up to all of us to protect them. No longer will citizens simple drain and give nothing. You want freedom of speech, freedom of religion? Here's a gun. You want to ensure you can leave when you want? Then make it so. It's ALL in your hands.

Those that are willing to die for their freedom will have it, while those who are to fearful will get the system they deserve. Such is the nature of the jungle.

As to rights, they will be there, but it will be up to all of us to protect them. No longer will citizens simple drain and give nothing. You want freedom of speech, freedom of religion? Here's a gun. You want to ensure you can leave when you want? Then make it so. It's ALL in your hands.

Those that are willing to die for their freedom will have it, while those who are to fearful will get the system they deserve. Such is the nature of the jungle.

sounds needlessly violent, considering we can achieve a lot more with cooperation and negotiation.

sounds needlessly violent, considering we can achieve a lot more with cooperation and negotiation.

the America Union would work rather well IMHO, you can do allot with trade these days

or better yet just get along because that what people do really :confused:

They were going to leave to keep slavery. Do you support slavery? Because it amounts to the same thing.

No. I do however support the right of a state to secede and the right of the rest of the world to end the new countries human rights abuses (if any).

They were going to leave to keep slavery. Do you support slavery? Because it amounts to the same thing.

That had nothing to do with the War itself. The issue was the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. The straw that broke the camel's back so to speak was the issue of slavery. Lincoln, while very committed to antislavery ideals stated that he would compromise that goal if it meant that the Union could be preserved. As history loved his hat and beard, Lincoln eventually got to have his cake and eat it too.

Always a fun exercise, how to divide up the US.

I still have a copy of one guess from another discussion.

California would form a coalition of states with Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii, and it would immediately become a vast economic power. Texas would do the same, only with New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and maybe Colorado. Georgia would lead the Carolinas, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. Appalachia would be West Virginia, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and not much else, and would be laughed at. The rest of the region, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, would try to cozy up to the Dakotas and become a nuclear threat. North Dakota may decide it's better off on its own and turn into a bizarre North Korea. The East Coast states from Maryland up to Maine would be one nation, though the western portions of PA and NY would be excluded.

I got eight nations out of it myself.

Utah - the only state to go independent. May change its name to Deseret or Mormon Homeland or something. Likely very conservative and isolated, and people would stay in it from birth to death. Salt Lake City would effectively be the only port for international travel.

Free Republic of the Pacific - led by California, the group would include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and any interests the U.S. has in the Pacific. The economy would be booming, and social policies would be relatively progressive. A rivalry between Los Angeles and New York City in terms of entertainment would be far more intense.

Confederate States of America - Georgia and Virginia would lead this group, most likely. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, the Carolinas, and Tennessee would be the membership of this strongly Christian nation. Conservative social policies, the Bible in schools, and adherence to tradition would dominate a nation that must rely in some form on tourism.

Appalachia - pulled together by Ohio, the nation is Ohio's attempt at trying to create a unified region. It fails, and only Indiana, Kentucly, West Virginia, and the western parts of Pennsylvania and New York join. The nation is largely poor and desires great things despite being largely ignored.

Great Lakes Republic - Ohio's idea put together without Ohio's inclusion or leadership. Instead, Illinois is the main focus of this nation, as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin join a nation centered around manufacturing. Attempts to get the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are met with a refusal, but the states share a lot of commonalities with the states and later consider joining the Republic.

Free Southern States - this is the Texas-led coalition, and it's likely to include Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as well. This land will be in conflict between the notion of self-sufficient freedom and the notion of Biblical law. Ultimately, this nation will value economic strength more, and social change will slowly follow.

Republic of New England - not encompassing just New England, this one goes all the way from Maine to Maryland, with Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the eastern parts of New York and Pennsylvania. This is likely to be the most socially progressive of the nations and the most city-filled; some will complain of high taxes, though.

The Rest - Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. I can't predict what they will do; a nation of their own is possible, but they may just stay independent and do their own thing. A relationship with the Great Lakes states is likely, though it won't proceed past friendship; no states are likely to decide to merge with the Great Lakes. The Dakotas, maybe.

So that's eight nations. One short of the Nine Nations of North America, but it works.

Except the reference, in context of this particular post, is to secession from the United States. Been tried [American Civil War]; see results [failure]

So the examples of other states seceding in different national contexts is, therefore, irrelevant.

Okay, putting aside how it wouldn't work; why don't you think it should happen? If they meet all three conditions and were not a threat would you still force them into a nation that they did not want to be in. Why would you do this and how would their decision affect you?

TSo that's eight nations. One short of the Nine Nations of North America, but it works.
8 Nations + Canada= Nine Nations of North America

Anyway, it does set a dangerous precedent. What happens if the District of Columbia decides to secede? What the hell do we do with that?

Dude,of course I don't support slavery,I'm black!And no it doesn't amount to the samething,what I mean is that the CSA had the right to secede and defend there cause.Plus even though the Union didn't have slavery it wasn't any better for blacks there we were still discriminated against.

Please put spaces in front of your sentences.


Yes, you're right that the blacks were not treated all that great in the Union. That does not change the fact however, that the CSA seceded from the union to KEEP SLAVERY.

Anyway, it does set a dangerous precedent. What happens if the District of Columbia decides to secede? What the hell do we do with that?

Have you ever been to DC? They wouldn't last a week without the rest of the country.

but think if we divide the states up we can gobble them up into the E.U without too much power falling to one state

world domination and such




It's the EU not the EAU.

8 Nations + Canada= Nine Nations of North America

We're the ninth wheel.

But what about all of these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America#Countries_and_territories)?

Please put spaces in front of your sentences.


Yes, you're right that the blacks were not treated all that great in the Union. That does not change the fact however, that the CSA seceded from the union to KEEP SLAVERY, among other reasons.

Fixed

8 Nations + Canada= Nine Nations of North America

No, Detroit eats Canada.

Fixed

I know the Union didn't fight them for slavery. It's just that the main reason the CSA tried to leave was slavery.

Yes, you're right that the blacks were not treated all that great in the Union. That does not change the fact however, that the CSA seceded from the union to KEEP SLAVERY, among other reasons.Fixed

Um. I don't want to start a side debate, especially when the OP tried very hard to distinguish the hypothetical from the example of the CSA.

But Kontor had it right in the beginning: Keeping and expanding slavery was the first and by far the foremost reason that the CSA seceded from the Union.

If the contract of statehood was violated and unintentionally rendered null and void the federal government could not legally force the state in question to resign a new contract of statehood. The state could legally refuse to sign the new contract and remain a territory and U.S. posession. The laws of the U.S. would apply to that area extremely loosely. It would be akin to the Virgin Islands. Such as Montana's official warning to the Supreme Court regarding it's contract of statehood and Heller vs. D.C. This should be interesting.

We're the ninth wheel.

But what about all of these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America#Countries_and_territories)?

I thought that that was all central America?

Except Greenland which I think is considered European?

I thought that that was all central America?

Except Greenland which I think is considered European?

It's owned by Europeans, but it's not part of Europe.

If the United States did split up into different nations, Canada would definitely buff up it's military might. Without the big bad United States of America holding our hand and several new nations vying for land and resources, we'd need to begin protecting ourselves. Canada as a major military power and world leader? Could be a possibility.

I know the Union didn't fight them for slavery. It's just that the main reason the CSA tried to leave was slavery.

Um. I don't want to start a side debate, especially when the OP tried very hard to distinguish the hypothetical from the example of the CSA.

But Kontor had it right in the beginning: Keeping and expanding slavery was the first and by far the foremost reason that the CSA seceded from the Union.

But not the only reason, which was the point I was making...

It wasn't just about slavery.

If the United States did split up into different nations, Canada would definitely buff up it's military might. Without the big bad United States of America holding our hand and several new nations vying for land and resources, we'd need to begin protecting ourselves. Canada as a major military power and world leader? Could be a possibility.

Protect yourself? I think you mean brutally conquer.

It's owned by Europeans, but it's not part of Europe.

Oh.... Well then, fine. I'll expand my mental borders of North America if I must.....:mad:;)

Protect yourself? I think you mean brutally conquer.

Canada conquer some of the new nations, or the new nations conquer us?

Canada conquer some of the new nations, or the new nations conquer us?

Canada would eagerly conquer the U.S if they could. The problem however, is that you have 30 million people and we have 300 million people.

Canada would eagerly conquer the U.S if they could. The problem however, is that you have 30 million people and we have 300 million people.

Yes, and we're huge pansies for the most part. But if the US did split into the 8 nations idea, I could see us taking over areas like the Dakotas and some of the agricultural areas. We'd really need to buff up our military before invading, though. but if we took advantage of the period where each of the different coalitions were still forming and if there was possibly internecine warfare, we could take huge tracts of land. Places like Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Montana, and Michigan would definitely be the first to be taken over. We'd extend our control of the Great Lakes and choke trade between the new nations.

Anyway, it does set a dangerous precedent. What happens if the District of Columbia decides to secede? What the hell do we do with that?

We rejoice that we lost so many politicians? Or would they make us keep those?

Yes, and we're huge pansies for the most part. But if the US did split into the 8 nations idea, I could see us taking over areas like the Dakotas and some of the agricultural areas. We'd really need to buff up our military before invading, though. but if we took advantage of the period where each of the different coalitions were still forming and if there was possibly internecine warfare, we could take huge tracts of land. Places like Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, the Dakotas, Montana, and Michigan would definitely be the first to be taken over. We'd extend our control of the Great Lakes and choke trade between the new nations.

Yes, in that case I think you could take the great plains. You could not take the coasts however, to densly population. (sorry for the bad spelling, I'm in a rush)

Anyway, it does set a dangerous precedent. What happens if the District of Columbia decides to secede? What the hell do we do with that?

Simple. We throw a party. :)

I doubt the US would split apart any time soon. However if it did I could imagine Mexico trying to take a lot of their territory back. Maybe even the British coming to take back the colonies, how knows?

Russia no doubt, under Putin, would go for Alaska as soon as they get the chance.

The DoI was founded on those principles, certainly, but the Constitution was not.

The constitution was also adopted illegally. ;)

Article XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/aofc.html#article%20xiii

Hypocrisy is one thing; the fact of the matter remains that, by your admission, we betrayed our founding principles and are subject to the constraints of the Constitution.

Which says nothing about secession.

Anything is certainly justifiable, and secession moreso by appealing to the same ideals that enabled us to break away from the UK; but Constitutionally it is not.

The constitutionality of secession is ambiguous. Nowhere does the constitution say a state cannot seceed. It is only the Articles of Confederation that states that the union is perpetual. That was the basis for the decision in Texas v. White [1 ("http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html)]. And as I pointed out earlier, SOCUS said secession was legal via "revolution or through consent of the States". Which leaves the door open...

*At the risk of hijacking the thread: For Lincoln to buy and free the slaves would require a de facto recognition of Southern independence, which never occurred (though it was treated as such after the war), and this would have worked against Lincoln's stance of holding the Union together, rather than rejoining two separate halves.

Lincoln's "gradual emancipation plan" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23434604/)

Anyway, it does set a dangerous precedent. What happens if the District of Columbia decides to secede? What the hell do we do with that?

If DC wants out, why keep them in at bayonet point?

If the contract of statehood was violated and unintentionally rendered null and void the federal government could not legally force the state in question to resign a new contract of statehood. The state could legally refuse to sign the new contract and remain a territory and U.S. posession. The laws of the U.S. would apply to that area extremely loosely. It would be akin to the Virgin Islands. Such as Montana's official warning to the Supreme Court regarding it's contract of statehood and Heller vs. D.C. This should be interesting.

Oooohhh! I missed that one. :)

For those interested, here's what he's on about.

Second Amendment an individual right

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage


N EXTRA-SESSION RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS OF THE 60TH MONTANA LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ELECTED MONTANA OFFICIALS URGING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT ANY "COLLECTIVE RIGHTS" HOLDING IN D.C. V. HELLER WILL VIOLATE MONTANA'S COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE CONTRACT BY WHICH MONTANA ENTERED THE UNION IN 1889.

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court (Court) has agreed to review and decide the case of D.C. v. Heller appealed to it from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals;

WHEREAS, the Court has agreed to consider the question, "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes";

WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

WHEREAS, the wording of the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms, now Article II, Section 12, exist today in form and wording identical to that agreed upon by the citizens of Montana and the United States in 1889 and unchanged since then; and

WHEREAS, a contract, compact or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time entered into.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and

2. That the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms are both statements securing a preexisting right from government interference, and do not confer any boon of government upon the people; and

3. The level of review for the Montana right to bear arms and for the Second Amendment are specified within those declared rights -- "shall not be infringed" for the Second Amendment, and "shall not be called in question" for the Montana right to bear arms;

4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller;

5. The undersigned incorporate by reference here a more thorough, attached explanation of the contract argument advanced; and

6. The undersigned legislators appreciate the attention of the Court to this argument on behalf of Montana and its citizens.
http://www.progunleaders.org./resolution.html

The constitution was also adopted illegally. ;)
Article XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Constitutional Convention was summoned by the (Articles-regime) Congress, and the Constitution was submitted as a report to that Congress, which approved it and recommended its ratification by a vote of 12-0, Rhode Island abstaining. There was another provision in the Articles (I'll look it up if you really want it) that a league comprising less than all 13 of the States could be formed, if none of the 13 objected: thus the provision of the Constitution allowing it to go into effect when only 9 states had ratified was not violative of the Articles, either. It was in fact the Articles Congress, meeting for the last time in Sept. 1788, which set up the arrangements for the first federal elections under the new system, although North Carolina was still out (it had voted No, pending the addition of a Bill of Rights) and Rhode Island was still abstaining (didn't get off the fence for a couple more years).