The Reality of State Secession


Recommended Posts

Just recently, the Texas GOP Convention resulted in the demand to put a referendum up for a vote in the state for Texas Secession.  No, this was not the first time.  No, it never gained much steam in the past.  No, it isn't really a gung-ho wide-spread Texan demand.  I'd dare say that for the most part Texans don't care one way or the other.  It's fun to talk about at parties.

I'll make some more comments below about the law, the history, etc.  But for now, I'd like to explore a more impactful question:

    If secession were possible, what then?  What would the post secession (parts of) America look like?

  • How would the monetary system work? Is there any state that could very quickly begin its own monetary system?
    • North Dakota has its own state bank.  It is essentially a baby version of the Federal Reserve.
    • Crypto will be available through a state sanctioned financial system without the 17% transaction fee.  Yeah, 17% SHEESH!
  • What about the military?
    • The military personnel by state of enlistment is about even.  A slight slant towards the red states.  But overall, about even.
    • Equipment?  Whoever maintains control of the actual equipment (including launch codes) will have the upper hand.
    • But forgetting about the actual war for power, what would happen afterwards?  Red states would be able to defend themselves.  More guns.  Blue States?  Yeah, still a lot of people, but would they move out?
  • Economy?
    • Right now all the blue states are dying and sucking the federal government dry.  The Red states are mostly faring well.
  • Industry?
    • Teh-heh.  Red states doing much better.  But that's not the only question.
    • Energy would be a huge deal.  But we need resources that are currently spread out between red and blue states.
      • Actual petroleum to work with.
      • Steel & concrete
      • Copper
      • Aluminum
      • Plastics
      • Electronics
      • Major equipment manufacturers
      • ... The list goes on

It looks like custody over the kids might be the main reason to avoid a divorce.  It would not look all that pleasant.  Given that, I'd say that the only way we could reasonably desire separation is if things get so bad that a very nasty custody battle is more desirable than the state of things as they are.

Quote

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now the how...

I have done a lot of reading on the topic since so many media outlets are simply making fun of the idea as some outlandish wish of the ignorant far right kooks who have nothing better to do with their time.  And to their point, the supposed legal basis for secession is weak at best.  But the one sticking point is the one strongest argument that it is still up in the air.

The one and only argument that really matters is that "The Civil War settled the issue once and for all."  Doesn't that mean that another civil war can "settle the issue again... in the other direction?"  I would think so.  But is that likely?  And could Texas (and some other states actually win such a war?  Likely not.  But I do see a possible future where secession is likely.  That is -- how much political impetus is going to survive enough to keep the nation together?

Neither side will really want to keep the other party around anymore.  Democrats may talk the talk about the Constitution when it serves their ends.  But don't hesitate to bow to the woke mob who believes the entire system is broken and was based on desires of slave owners to keep their own power.  They'd have no problem getting rid of the Constitution.

Republicans say they care about the Constitution.  But the very existence of the secession movement (mostly by Republicans in various states) indicates they realize it may not be worth it anymore.

If neither of the major parties really wants to be married anymore, wouldn't a divorce seem inevitable?  During the actual Civil War, many Northerners were wondering why Lincoln even cared about keeping the South in the Union.  "Let them go!" many activists cried out, "We don't need them!"  Well, that didn't happen.  But the sentiment was there.  Is it stronger today?

Lincoln felt the need to keep the nation together because he felt that to let the South go would mean that the great American Experiment was a failure.  We know that it was not a failure.  That fact is firmly established.  So, I'd ask:  What is the purpose of keeping the nation together today?  If a civil war were to break out today we KNOW that many media outlets on both sides of the aisle would be saying "Let them go! We don't need them!"  And at this point, is anyone in leadership practical enough to realized that, yes, we DO need them?  Or are they even going to be megalomaniacal enough to want to keep them "just because I said so"?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, there is no reason for the US to do things the way Canada does them, but I returned from my mission to Quebec just a few years before the 1995 referendum in which the popular vote of Quebecers only narrowly voted to remain a part of Canada. In the aftermath, there was a Canadian Supreme Court opinion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec) on what it would take for a province to secede, as well as the Clarity Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act) that outlined possible terms of secession. Again, we don't have to be like Canada, but it seems like there is a possible precedent there for looking at the possibility of a peaceful secession rather than resorting to a second civil war.

I think you are right that the big questions are not really addressed in the "should we secede or not?" question. There are a lot of things that the states outsource to the federal government which, if a state seceded, it would have to figure out how it was going to accomplish those things. Minting of currency is one thing, but then how to bolster the value of that currency so it doesn't tank? How to manage military forces and resources? How to negotiate trade now that the state boundary is now an international boundary, and so on. I think it is easy in the heat of political rhetoric to overlook or downplay these kinds of pragmatic issues, but they are not small.

As you say, it is an interesting hypothetical to talk about at parties and on the internet. I would hope that we would be very careful about the decision should it ever get beyond hypotheticals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe the blue states would let the red states go.  They view red-staters as latter-day nazis and would-be slaveholders; our ongoing containment (if not subjugation) is their moral duty.  They are willing to kill for that; some are even willing to die for it (see, eg, Rittenhouse’s attackers); they are certainly willing to push “launch” buttons on non-nuclear missiles and “fire” buttons on drones.  

Even if such a divorce miraculously went well for conservatives:  the measures that it would require to keep the new “red America” ideologically and culturally pure enough to prevent it from turning “blue” within a couple more generations, would make “red America” drastically different from any previous iteration of the United States of America.  I’m not sure such a result would be worth the sacrifice necessary to bring it about.

Lately I’ve been thinking much less about “conservative vs liberal”, and much more about “Zion vs not-Zion”.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 11:20 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t believe the blue states would let the red states go.  They view red-staters as latter-day nazis and would-be slaveholders; our ongoing containment (if not subjugation) is their moral duty.  They are willing to kill for that; some are even willing to die for it (see, eg, Rittenhouse’s attackers); they are certainly willing to push “launch” buttons on non-nuclear missiles and “fire” buttons on drones.  

Even if such a divorce miraculously went well for conservatives:  the measures that it would require to keep the new “red America” ideologically and culturally pure enough to prevent it from turning “blue” within a couple more generations, would make “red America” drastically different from any previous iteration of the United States of America.  I’m not sure such a result would be worth the sacrifice necessary to bring it about.

Lately I’ve been thinking much less about “conservative vs liberal”, and much more about “Zion vs not-Zion”.  

The problem is more than just red states verses blue states.  It also tends to be cosmopolitan verses rural.  Even in a very red state like Utah the high population area of downtown Salt Lake City tips towards the blue Democrats.   Manufacturing and agriculture tends to be more red where as tech and medical tend towards blue.  And there are always exceptions.

I tend to think that the USA will follow more along the lines of Israel and Ireland with pockets of opposition where there are areas where one just does not mix with the other.  Perhaps fashion and style choices will determine with what side one has chosen.

The prophetic division uses the symbols of Zion and Babylon.   Most of us have a good idea what Babylon looks and acts like - but Zion???  We think of Babylon as the rich and prosperous and Zion as the industrious hard workers.  I can see why the Zion population would not want to be involved with Babylon but I cannot envision why Babylon would be interested in Zion?   All I have to go on comes from the Book of Mormon where the Gadianton Robbers seem to believe that they have the "right" to rule over the workers (Standard Socialists model) telling them what is freedom and liberty is.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

  I can see why the Zion population would not want to be involved with Babylon but I cannot envision why Babylon would be interested in Zion?   All I have to go on comes from the Book of Mormon where the Gadianton Robbers seem to believe that they have the "right" to rule over the workers (Standard Socialists model) telling them what is freedom and liberty is.

 

I think you’ve pretty much nailed it.  Zion constructs, Babylon deconstructs.  Zion produces, Babylon consumes.  Zion is inherently orderly, Babylon necessarily chaotic.  Zion produces the milk; Babylon can only skim the cream.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

a miI've been noticing a trend recently that is too strong to ignore.  The current raving (potentially criminal and treasonous) acts from the left, with the pleas to kill The SCOTUS justices, is leading me to see the historical pattern that the Roman Empire had.

One method of secession that will not spark a war is if there is a federal crisis that means NO ONE will get the kids.  Kill the kids, and destroy all assets.  Then all of a sudden, a divorce is moot.

We may have a Western Empire/Byzantine pattern.  I've just begun reading about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.  It is very long and very complicated.  So, there might not be a complete parallel.  But I sure am seeing a LOT of commonalities thus far.

"Secession" as such, may not be required to provide the same results.

Interesting reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Roman-Empire-ebook/dp/B09HHB9H5M

I'm hoping someone will spend the buck, read the thing, and confirm what I've heard on TikTok:  That one of the things that happened in the Roman empire's final decades, was a blurring of gender roles and associated notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Roman-Empire-ebook/dp/B09HHB9H5M

I'm hoping someone will spend the buck, read the thing, and confirm what I've heard on TikTok:  That one of the things that happened in the Roman empire's final decades, was a blurring of gender roles and associated notions.

You don't need to spend the buck.  It's in the public domain.

https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=decline+and+fall+of+the+roman+empire&submit_search=Go!

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the lockdowns still going on in Australia? 

I do know that the general population has severe restrictions on firearms use for self defense in Australia.  In my opinion I would not want to live in any land that bans the common population from decent quality semi auto or pump action firearms for self defense.

We live in an evil telestial world and I want weapons for protection until all the wicked are destroyed from off the Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Are the lockdowns still going on in Australia? 

I do know that the general population has severe restrictions on firearms use for self defense in Australia.  In my opinion I would not want to live in any land that bans the common population from decent quality semi auto or pump action firearms for self defense.

We live in an evil telestial world and I want weapons for protection until all the wicked are destroyed from off the Earth.

Covid has been on the increase for the last few months but there is no political appetite to reintroduce lockdowns, the population are thoroughly fed up with them. Most covid bans have been reduced except for the requirement to isolate for 7 days if you test positive and the requirement to wear masks in high risk settings, eg, hospitals and aged care facilities.

Its possible to own and use firearms in Australia, but you have to go through a lot of regulatory procedures before you can own and use a gun. Here is a good discussion from the US Library of Congress about the state of gun bans in Australia. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2016-11-28/australia-import-ban-on-lever-action-shotguns-with-magazine-capacity-over-five-rounds-to-continue/ 

. The last controversy about gun laws, about 6 years ago, was the import ban on the Adler shot-gun. Current regulations allow for the use and possession of a pump-action shotgun with a 5 cartridge capacity but the Adler has an 8 shot capacity, so after some debate in Parliament, it was banned. 

Last time I checked, the borders of the evil telestial world seemed to be pretty closely aligned with the borders of Australia. I'm not sure if that's by coincidence or design. We have a big sign at most of our international airports saying "Please return home if you are from the evil telestial world." :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Covid has been on the increase for the last few months but there is no political appetite to reintroduce lockdowns, the population are thoroughly fed up with them. Most covid bans have been reduced except for the requirement to isolate for 7 days if you test positive and the requirement to wear masks in high risk settings, eg, hospitals and aged care facilities.

Its possible to own and use firearms in Australia, but you have to go through a lot of regulatory procedures before you can own and use a gun. Here is a good discussion from the US Library of Congress about the state of gun bans in Australia. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2016-11-28/australia-import-ban-on-lever-action-shotguns-with-magazine-capacity-over-five-rounds-to-continue/ 

. The last controversy about gun laws, about 6 years ago, was the import ban on the Adler shot-gun. Current regulations allow for the use and possession of a pump-action shotgun with a 5 cartridge capacity but the Adler has an 8 shot capacity, so after some debate in Parliament, it was banned. 

Last time I checked, the borders of the evil telestial world seemed to be pretty closely aligned with the borders of Australia. I'm not sure if that's by coincidence or design. We have a big sign at most of our international airports saying "Please return home if you are from the evil telestial world." :) 

https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Megatron_(G1)/toys#Masterpiece

About that...

When the Transformers line was first launched in 1984, the mold for the Megatron character was recycled from the Japanese "Micro Quick Change" toy line, where he was a working cap gun made to resemble a Walther P38. Hasbro gutted the cap gun mechanisms, but didn't alter the physical appearance. 

In 2007, the decision was made to do a "Masterpiece" - grade version of the figure, a high-end collector's item whose robot and alternate modes would closely resemble the character model used in the 1980s cartoon. 

Numerous reports from Australian collectors claimed that when they attempted to import him from Japan their shipments were almost uniformly seized by Australian customs on the basis of his being a "replica gun", with everyone who had their figure seized never being able to get them. 

Things were so bad that a group of Australian Transformers fans actually talked about registering as an official gun club and obtaining licenses that way so that they could hopefully legally import him. 

https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Megatron_(G1)/toys#Classics

Hasbro themselves had just released a version of Megatron the previous year that turned into something resembling a Nerf gun, and so fans had been excited about the prospect of a release of the Masterpiece figure outside of Australia. 

Instead, Hasbro *cancelled* the figure's release outside of Japan (long-time corporate partner Takara-Tomy controls the franchise in Japan), and various gun rights groups used the incident as a talking point for some time thereafter. 

https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Megatron_(G1)/toys#Transformers_.282010.29

Hasbro made one last try to release Megatron as a gun, this time a tiny little number about the size of a lighter, but even then they had to go through a lot of complications to make it happen. Between the Australia incident and various toy safety regulations, they've confirmed that they will never again attempt a release of him - or certain other characters - that resemble actual firearms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We actually sponsored a family to immigrate to the US from Australia, about 9 years ago. The Dad got his US citizenship about 1.5 years ago (in the midst of covid, so no one was allowed to attend the ceremony, which was pretty crappy). Anyway, they left Aussie land due to the strict gun laws there... to paraphrase his words... in Australia, it's illegal to defend your family. Well that's a huge bummer. Other than their gun laws, Australia seems to be a pretty great place.

It's very odd to me how many nations have allowed their citizen's gun rights to be so grossly abridged. Or perhaps I should say, it's surprising how many "citizens" in other nations, have allowed their gun rights to be abridged. Although there seems to be a lot of people who worry about that happening in the US, I don't see that as a legitimate or serious concern, as there are a LOT of Americans who would fight to prevent that from happening (most likely meaning a civil war). Just my thoughts here, but if someone isn't willing to stand up and fight for a right... they shouldn't be all that surprised when someone else comes along and takes that right away from them. I'm not saying that's fair, but that's just the way it is in the world. Often, the right thing to do, isn't the easy thing to do. But if you allow someone to abridge your gun rights... then know, that you've given them the ability to abridge any other right you had... at this point, you can say goodbye to freedom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

We actually sponsored a family to immigrate to the US from Australia, about 9 years ago. The Dad got his US citizenship about 1.5 years ago (in the midst of covid, so no one was allowed to attend the ceremony, which was pretty crappy). Anyway, they left Aussie land due to the strict gun laws there... to paraphrase his words... in Australia, it's illegal to defend your family. Well that's a huge bummer. Other than their gun laws, Australia seems to be a pretty great place.

It's very odd to me how many nations have allowed their citizen's gun rights to be so grossly abridged. Or perhaps I should say, it's surprising how many "citizens" in other nations, have allowed their gun rights to be abridged. Although there seems to be a lot of people who worry about that happening in the US, I don't see that as a legitimate or serious concern, as there are a LOT of Americans who would fight to prevent that from happening (most likely meaning a civil war). Just my thoughts here, but if someone isn't willing to stand up and fight for a right... they shouldn't be all that surprised when someone else comes along and takes that right away from them. I'm not saying that's fair, but that's just the way it is in the world. Often, the right thing to do, isn't the easy thing to do. But if you allow someone to abridge your gun rights... then know, that you've given them the ability to abridge any other right you had... at this point, you can say goodbye to freedom. 

In both the UK and Australia, the confiscation of private firearms came in the wake of a mass shooting incident. 

Canada's recent attempts at firearm confiscation come in the wake of widespread protests against the current prime minister. 

Things like this are why gun rights activists fear that the government will try to confiscate by force so that the people can't stand up to the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That word "confiscate'... when citizens (of any country) allow "that" to happen, regardless of the "reason" that is offered for doing so... then they have lost. And further more, they have lost something which can never be recovered. If confiscation comes to America (but I doubt it can/will), then it will fail, or I'll end up dead.

Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death". Yes... that's my final answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

If confiscation comes to America (but I doubt it can/will), then it will fail, or I'll end up dead.

 

It’s an interesting issue. Those who want to take the guns also want to defund the police. So I don’t know who will take the guns. 
 

And, on the flip side, those who scream “Molon Labe” also have “Back the Blue” bumper stickers. So when the police go door to door to confiscate guns….these guys will be very confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DMGNUT said:

If confiscation comes to America (but I doubt it can/will), then it will fail, or I'll end up dead.

I suppose you mean if it comes again.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

They never seem to call it the 'c' word when they're doing it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LDSGator said:

It’s an interesting issue. Those who want to take the guns also want to defund the police. So I don’t know who will take the guns. 
 

And, on the flip side, those who scream “Molon Labe” also have “Back the Blue” bumper stickers. So when the police go door to door to confiscate guns….these guys will be very confused. 

Individual politicians have made statements indicating that private firearms are worthless against the might of the US military, so there's no point in people having them anyway. 

The *way* they've worded these statements is often such that people are left guessing whether or not these politicians are referring to the possibility of martial law being imposed at some nebulous point and the military being employed to confiscate private weapons. 

Even if we presume that the politicians didn't mean it that way, a lot of the more, shall we say, excitable types have indeed taken it to mean as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share