What if states decided to secede?

Is there a point at which the federal government's wanton disregard for individual and state's rights in favor of "big brother" tactics becomes too much? Could several states - let's just say the three on the west coast, for the sake of argument - decide they will keep all the federal taxes their citizens and corporations pay, start fixing their own roads and funding their own schools, quit sending their national guard to Iraq? I know, we fought a civil war over just such a move by the Old South. And in that case the states were on the wrong side of the issue morally.

But as the Constitution is systematically gutted, the country's moral position internationally is demolished, and the various services such as disaster relief, VA services, transportation safety, port security, FAA capacity, etc. etc. are neglected and/or gutted, and the elected representatives the states have sent to the federal government fail to put a stop to it, where is the point at which the rules cease to apply?

A state joins the Union with certain rights and responsibilities, and the Union has certain rights and responsibilities in return. When is that pact null and void? How can it be that a state is a member in perpetuity, with no right of revocation?

Think about it. What could the feds do if this happened? Oh, I know, bush has issued an executive order that he can call up the Guard from one state and send it to another. Who thinks that if California, or New York, or Kansas for that matter, said "we've had enough" that the worn-out Nat Guard from other states would answer the call? Bush could end up presiding over the breakup of the United States, as Gorbachev did the USSR.

I am not promoting this. But I believe that the country may be a powderkeg. Oh, it took a long time for the Soviet people to say "Enough!" as it did the Russian people before their revolution, and the French...

But people DO have their limits, and in the case of the US, they have local (state) governments to which to turn in protest. Assuming that the political process fails, that the cabal manages to either eliminate the next election or steal it, and clamp down even further on such things as the recent threats against any state with the temerity to offer healthcare to children, how long can they keep going before it blows back at them?

The simple fact is that bush is right about one of his worn out slogans. People do want freedom.
People don't like tyranny. So far they have gotten away with turning the heat up slowly, and we frogs (many of us) don't realize we're boiling. And if that continues, the oppression will get worse, and civil disobedience will be much more hazardous. But they CAN push it past a tipping point.

I don't know what that tipping point will be, and what will happen. I just know that what is going on cannot continue indefinitely.

these days all the feds have to do is refuse to release the highway funds and the states fall in line anyway

so. not. gonna. happen.

if the state secedes the citizens can take their federal taxes and turn it over to the state -- voila

money to build their own roads

Federal taxes are collected directly by the federal government. And the citizens who don't send in their returns (plus checks) or requests for extensions (plus checks) by 4/15 each year are pursued by federal law enforcement.

The states don't see a dime of federal taxes unless/until some federal bureaucracy decides to give them some.

Many things might/could happen should one or more states decide they don't want to be part of America any more, but getting the cash that their citizens send to the U.S. Government wouldn't be one of them. At least not until after the war, and then only if the secessionist state(s) won.

clarifyingly,
Bright

not at this time however. it is past my bedtime. another time, perhaps?

If a state was to secede from the union the citizens would no longer be required to pay taxes directly to the former federal government.

thats right up there with "well Im not going to pay my taxes" kind of thinking...

its novel, cute, and naive to think, but in the end it wont make a lick of difference..

"....It is simply humanly impossible to understand and commune with the whole Earth or with a continent or, in fact, with anything larger than the natural region one lives in. And any attempt to do so—though Lord knows it is tried often enough—is futile.

That is one important reason to think about secession. Yes, I said secession: the breaking up of large nations into smaller independent political entities that run their own affairs, have their own governments, operate their own economies and control their own environments on a bioregional scale. It’s a word that scares people even now, and most of the time it conjures up ideas of treason, illegality, racism or just plain futility.

But it really is as American as, well, the Declaration of Independence, which states that “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish , and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” As American as the war that followed from that—not a revolutionary war at all but a secessionist one, since the colonists had no intention of taking over the British government, only of separating from it to run their own governments as they saw fit. As American, in fact, as the separation of Maine from Massachusetts, Tennessee from North Carolina, and West Virginia from Virginia, all of which were done in an orderly and peaceful fashion.

There is a myriad of reasons to contemplate secession these days. On the one hand, it frees a territory from the incompetent, corrupt, militaristic and illegal government in Washington, DC, as well as the empire that Washington has created to spread its corporate owners around the world. At the same time, it provides a scale of decision-making that allows something close to true democracy (representation that truly reflects a constituency’s wishes); a scale of trade and commerce that allows full employment, healthy food, nontoxic material goods and a sound currency free of the volatile and perilous dollar; a scale of administration that replaces the bloated federal bureaucracy with smaller, more efficient and responsive operations; in short, a scale of human affairs..."

<snip>



http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=312

...otherwise they just send the army down under the command of some W.T. Sherman type figure and make sure you regret you ever even thought about it...

I don't think one or several states will secede. I think when the end comes, the consensus would be that the federal government is simply dissolved and that the states will form several smaller regional nation-states.

as I said, I am not trying to crystal ball what will or should happen, just musing that having this country turned into the old USSR probably would not last forever.

Obviously retaining the monies being collected through "taxation without representation" would be essential, and that would mean the citizens of the states would have to decide whether to be a "Loyalist" or a "Patriot" as in the American Revolution. At the outset only about 1 it 4 or so were "Patriots." That changed during the course of the war, until only about 15-20% were "Loyalists."

It is one thing for a handful of libertarians to refuse to pay taxes - obviously the feds can mop the floor with them. But if a large enough portion of a state did it, they'd be overloaded. And if the movement was not covert, but, rather, openly debated and voted on by the state legislature, particularly if it were several states, I don't know that the outcome is predictable. And, if as you suggest, the "several states" were most, or all - well, game over. The federal government would just cease to exist. Poof.

That is the ultimate issue with the path they have put us on. It is not sustainable. It cannot just go marching on to a full takeover by the corporatists, dismantling of all social programs, subjugation of the "common" folk. That is where they appear to be headed, and they may go a lot further in that direction, but SOMETHING will give. The states could do it peacefully; individuals could not.

At some point We the People will once again assert our rights. Lets hope it happens sooner rather than later, and we can keep our government and just throw the bums out. Theres a lot of bums though!

The US won't last forever as a construct. Like previous empires, the US government, too, will fall, and if history is any indication, the people who were at the bottom will inherit what is left. The meek shall inherit the earth. Mark my words, the days of the US as a nation are numbered. Bush is simply a symptom of a decaying power.

It wouldn't be pretty, I can assure you that.

In the War between the States there was a sharp socioeconomic divide; north vs South; people were fighting for their "homeland."

On the one hand the might of the US military is pretty much invincible if they pull out all the stops - "shock and awe" and all that.

But assuming they did not, or could not get the Generals to go along, what then?

They gonna tell the marines in San Diego, Camp Pendleton, and Twentynine Palms to go attack California?

The marines gonna jump in Humvees and go arrest Schwarzenneggar? They gonna tell the Air Force to launch ICBMs against Sacramento?

No, I think they'd have to use Blackwater.

Scares the shit out of me, but I guess that is what they count on. It would be a big game of chicken.

As I said, I don't know how long it will take - maybe decades - but their long-term plan of unitary rule won't last forever. And it could be really ugly.

Vote Democratic! :)

The thing about propaganda for instance is that it goes bad after awhile. You have to act fast when the people are fooled because they will figure it out in time. A good example will be seen if they try to use similar tactics they used to justify a war with Iran as they used with Iraq. Watch the public reaction.

The other thing you have is widespread crapification of everything like in the USSR, stimulated by everybody being afraid to say the truth. This will in time create long term economic consequences which in turn create short term real world suffering for people. Then, you will start to see widespread civil unrest, and the propaganda driving such a movement will be "the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky." as Charlemagne put it. Which is to say it will be reality itself, something officers and other types will not be able to turn away from. Then things get ugly.

If things don't change, I would say we have about 5 years. I hope they will.

would be General Franks leading mostly Georgia troops on his march to the sea from Idaho to Portland, Oregon which "made Oregon howl," and General Schwartzkopf's burning of the San Fernando Valley to starve out the coast so thoroughly that a crow would have to pack a lunch to cross it.

I can see the logistic point you are trying to make, but if Franks thinks Portland is on the coast, and Schwartzkopf thinks that the San Fernando Valley is the center of California agriculture, I'd say the chance of the states attempting to secede would be pretty damn good.

While Franks and his troops were wasting their time rousting scruffy Portlanders out of their brewpubs, the resistance would simply toodle up the Columbia River to the Pacific. Meanwhile, in southern California, Schwartzkopf's forces would be trapped in traffic on the myriad freeways, giving Californians time to secure the bounty of the state's bread, fruit, and vegetable basket: the enormous Central Valley.

Academically, the idea of West Coast secession is very interesting. Not only is California the most populous and prospersous state, but the majority of the nation's hi-tech and computer technology is headquartered in the three Pacific Coast states. I'd bet good money that the geeks in Silicon Valley, at Intel (Oregon), or in Seattle (Microsoft), could do some serious damage to military technology and/or communications if they put their minds to it. Not to mention the fact that borders with Canada and Mexico would provide routes by which to obtain assistance from other nations, particularly those in Asia.

You want to fire a nuke you have to have the codes. AND the agreement of more than one crew member after you get them. If the US entered a period of Civil War, I'd be much more worried about Biological and Chemical weapons. Be pretty damn easy for some college or university to cook up some anthrax or one of the various nerve agents. Several deployment methods could be used.

..... the citizens would be better off. We'd be closer to our government and able to more directly influence policy. There's also be less chance to go go war since, as smaller nations, we'd be less able to muster armies and buy superweapons.

But as I say ...... it was and remains a fantasy.

he sets up a scenario where the Confederacy wins the Civil War and the U.S. ends up a collection of Banana Republics. Pretty fun reading.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In fact Texas went from

Mexican state to
Republic of Texas to
US state to
Confederate state

in just 25 years.

They didn't think they'd be militarily crushed for that last change which they made by overwhelming popular vote, with the voters going against the sitting governor's advice to stay in the US.

Bombed into oblivion. Depopulated.

Don

That the states are really like the old USSR's "satellite" states - Poland, East Germany, Checkoslavakia?

You think that the fed under bush-like "leadership" would be able to order that and make it happen?

The fed, after all, is only an assemblage of states. There technically is no central government. The congress is made up of representative of the states, unlike the old Politburo. The executive branch is in theory just there to carry out the laws. Bush is pushing hard to turn it into a unitary government, in which there IS a central control and congress and states have no authority. But ultimately the central government's control is only as strong as the willingness of its military to act against its people.

I don't think the outcome can be predicted so simply.

there was that same feeling that the US wouldn't actually invade the south to force them back into the union after they voted to leave. No area that large had ever been conquered if the people didn't want it conquered.

At the worst there would be one little battle and then the feds would see the new nation was serious about protecting itself and peace would be made between the two neighbors. As Jeff Davis said in his inauguration address, "all we ask is to be left alone." A lot of people thought they would be. Davis had sent a delegation to Washington to negotiate differences between the two nations, but no one knew how President-elect Lincoln would react when he became president.

I would not count on history being a lesson.
I am not saying it will happen, or that it will work, just speculating as to how/where the bubble will burst

Sometimes, I think the Bush/R plan is to break up the USA, USSR style, to make off with the natural resources on federal lands. The West is over 50% federal land and mineral rights.

Do you think a state with lots of ranchers will abolish grazing those lands to protect them, or a state with powerful oil companies.....

just saying if the one-sided coup continues eventually something will break.

And of course a state that declared independence could continue grazing and mineral rights deals... keeping the money

Forget about Indiana. It's not worth saving.

Maybe just annex the northern part with the toll road and kick out the company running the toll road.

Northern Ohio is liberal Democratic, and further south you go, it eventually becomes hard core Rethug.

and half the change in our pockets is Canadian. It would be an easy transition. :)

Now THERE's a twist!

Bush has supposedly been up there working on some sort of European union deal with Canada and Mexico -

what if instead of partitioning Iraq...

We could do away with illegal immigration in a heartbeat!

Ya think Mexico would be willing to take Texas back?

New York and Minnesota then would soon follow.

Why New England and MI first?

1. Admission of New England as a Canadian province would ensure that Canada would not be cut in two by a Quebec secession.

2. Admission of MI would give Canada control of most of the Great Lakes, the largest supply of fresh water in the world.

All theoretical talk, of course and I hope we can resolve our difference before something like this happens.

They tried their best to leave.

The voters voted overwhelmingly to leave and they backed their view with as much armed force as they could muster until they were beaten into surrender over four years.

In some states the citizens wouldn't have the fire power to mount even a small insurgency. Single shot rifles,and 8 shot hand guns wouldn't get far.

In other states the citizens have enough fire power to fight a pretty strong insurgency, gorilla type war. They may be able to drag it out long enough.

I am thinking I would prefer the west coast

Want to buy a Clue? Because you obviously don't have one. I can sell you one for just a few bucks.

No secession. No civil war. No wholesale changes regarding the makeup of the United States, no matter HOW MUCH you wish it so.

Find another fantasy.

Another 50 years? A hundred?

I doubt it will last more than a hundred more years.

it won't be 50

if something does not explode in retaliation, they'll dissolve it as we know it. Might still be CALLED that, but it won't be under this Constitution.

it will probably be very difficult to keep the United States together, at least in it's present form. D.C. will be under water for one thing, so at some point I think the government will have to be decentralized.

Even Rome eventually fell. Now I am not saying it will happen tomorrow, but 500 years from now do you really think the country will look the same?

if trends continue, if the polarization continues, and if the majority of other-than-rich "conservatives" realize they are being screwed, brewed, and tattooed...

In college I had a professor whose take on the Civil war was it was not fought over slavery, but state ECONOMIC rights...it was a battle between the industrialized North and the agririan south...which economy would dominate. His main thesis was had the south won, it would have been a major disaster for the south as without an industrial base, it would suffer a third world fate and eventually either industrialize or beg the north for re-admittance...and that the civil war itself really wasn't necessary.

Today our states are economically co-dependent on one another like never before. Despite size, no one state could sever ties with the rest without going through a massive economic depression. Local citizens would be taxed up the wazoo to make up for lost federal funds, tarrifs and other measures would add other costs to any "independent" state from gaining much financial prosperity or dependence and it'd be surrounded by hostile neighbors. It would pit economic interests against each other and I see little advantage.

People here, sadly, aren't like the Russian or French. We don't see people qued up in long lines to buy toilet paper or riots in the streets. People here can't even agree on which issue is the most important or take a civil action of any sizeable numbers, like the protests many of us saw and participated in during the Vietnam era. It's a lot of words on websites and verbage spewed on the corporate airwaves, but most people are too wrapped up in their own lives or special interests to be bothered with getting off their asses. Sad but true.

I was taught that in grade school but with more of a "those damn yankees it's all about money" twist to it.

it is not that bad - yet

but continue gutting social programs, and enter another depression...

if and when there is ever another civil war here.

fundies will gather in one state and secede so they can finally have their American Talibanate.

Advocating dissolving the Union sounds so, well, Confederate to me. I hear there's sanctuary for you in Venezuela.

I did not advocate it. I speculated on the prospect. I'd much rather see our government restored.

interests (states) would get together and try to instigate a Constitutional Convention.

build a big wall around it and make it a Christian state? A group of his followers has actually moved there and started to build "his dream". Last I heard, he was still in California though...:rofl:

:D

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the truth can be
found in these two books:

o Joel Garreau's non-fiction book: The Nine Nations of North America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America

o Ernset Callenbach's novel Ecotopia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia

The sooner this alleged "nation" breaks up, the better
off we'll all be. I'd be very pleased to support (with
my life, if necessary) either a New England, Cascadian,
or Ecotopian secessionist movement.

Tesha