In the Time of a Second Civil War, who would you support?

[MadBasstid]

National sovereignty is an arbitrary idea, and is only enforceable by strength. In the grand scheme of things, nations rise, crumble, fall, re-form, fall again, evolve, rise, and fall again in an endless cycle. Sometimes the falls are quiet, sometimes they are violent. There is literally nothing keeping the United States together as a nation beyond self interest, tradition, and military might. If things were to change, and it became better for people to dissolve the Union and develop another system of government rather thank keep a corrupt, decrepit system on life support, they will do so. This is inevitable because, at some point, the government will become totalitarian, tyrannical, or ineffectual and it will no longer be in the best interests of the people to keep the system around. This is what happens when human nature marries entropy. The Roman Republic fell when it became corrupt and ineffective, the Roman Empire fell when her government became weak and her citizens ceased to care.
In order for a nation to remain strong, there has to exist within it a singularity of purpose, a common goal. Not that everyone has to tow the line and do what the powers that be tell them to do, but there needs to be a mutual agreement on basic issues like what goals that nation has, what will it's standards of human rights will be, etc. There also needs to be leadership that is able to clearly communicate to the people what those goals and standards will be.
If a nation is unable to unite on these things, if her leaders cloud the air and cause confusion, division, and strife, then the nation is no longer a nation. It is inevitable that there will be a clash of cultures, of values, of strength, of leadership, of ideas, and only the strongest will win. Periodically, such clashes are necessary to clear the air and make room for re-birth. This is not the tired old maxim of the crazed Jeffersonians that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of patriots" but the creed of nature, that in order for life to exist, death must also exist. And so it must also be for governments and nations.
SO, I guess what I am saying is that if civil war were to erupt, it is because the old system needs to either evolve or die. It has become useless as a tool for uniting the people and giving them the means of success; indeed, the very specter of civil war is an indication of how ineffective the leadership has become and how much we need new ideas, new leadership, new goals. If civil war breaks out in America, it will not be because of racism or abortion or socialism or war or republicans or democrats or any other political mcguffin, but because the government as a whole has stopped uniting and leading the people. It will be because the government has actively sought out and fostered division and strife among the people in order to ensure their own power and re-election.

Right on. Well stated.

[The Grand Duchy of Marinia]

What Canadians do isn't really relevant.

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

Really? REALLY?? You think CANADA can take a state that has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD, AND-AND!!! a million citizens that each have access to an arsenal?? Seriously, Montana has more guns per-capita than TEXAS. You really think CANADA can muster up the cajones and guns necessary to take on a state full of real-life cowboys and Indians that are armed to the teeth? HAH! Keep dreaming, buddy.

[Tovakestan]

The North should just let the south and west go, that way they can get rid of those "Pesky Backwards Conservatives" like me. Besides, the North typically find Southerners to be Inbred Hicks, as with the westerners. I'm guessing that the North want the red states for their Oil anyway.

[Kintuckistan]

Northwest Front.

[The Elven Imperium]

Is a teenager saying she wants to move out a "threat" to her parents that requires violent force- even if she is, in reality, not old enough to move out & take care of herself, or needed within the family unit (say, for income)? If she is not threatening her parents with violence, they would not respond with violence- but with words, bribes, threat of nonviolent sanctions (grounding), discussion, negotiations, etc.

Now, if the secessionists decide to go to war with arms, certainly it would be only fair to meet them with arms. But that seems to be unlikely to happen to me.

This also can happen in Civil War situations. See: The Velvet Revolution; the Czech Republic split from Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia) without a bloody war. A country can agree to allow a part of it to leave the Union without blood being shed- & the in the modern world, it seems to me unlikely that, if succession were a real & viable option for part of the U.S., that a peaceful solution would not be sought. Negotiations would happen, money would change hands, & we'd find ourselves with two distinct countries that would probably keep working together very closely.

Also, one question your comment raises in my mind is whether one is ethically compelled to recognize the sovereignty of the country in the first place. Is the country being ruled in a way that is oppressive? Are it's policies bad? Does the way that the country is being run threaten your liberty, your money, etc.? Do you simply want to not be ruled by it?

Personally, I didn't ask to be ruled by anyone, & I'm not a big fan of it, so I don't feel a need to be unwaveringly loyal to my government- particularly as I don't support a lot of what they do. I see my duty as being to fight against the injustices perpetuated by the government, & to fight for more freedom from government in general- peacefully, if at all possible.

As I said I admire your stance but I can not support it. Your Idea would lead to the destruction of my nation. The United States is already weaken economically with all it territory. Now you wish them to peacefully let at least 7 states go? Madness. It would cripple our economy even more so. Leave us more vulnerable to potential enemies.

Let not add the United States government would never let a state leave the union. We had this discussion before. It was in 1861. That debate lead to a horrible civil war. The end result was the rebel states where force back into the Union. Do you want a repeat of that? Cause that what going to happen if the those states proceed beyond just angry petitions posting on a website.

[Wisconsin9]

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

Really? REALLY?? You think CANADA can take a state that has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD, AND-AND!!! a million citizens that each have access to an arsenal?? Seriously, Montana has more guns per-capita than TEXAS. You really think CANADA can muster up the cajones and guns necessary to take on a state full of real-life cowboys and Indians that are armed to the teeth? HAH! Keep dreaming, buddy.

To be fair, the state has absolutely no control over the nukes themselves.

[The Old South]

The Confederacy of Independent Systems. Or the Rebel Alliance.

[Maurepas]

If this state seceded, I'm thinking of moving to Seattle

[Adventus Secundus]

Is a teenager saying she wants to move out a "threat" to her parents that requires violent force- even if she is, in reality, not old enough to move out & take care of herself, or needed within the family unit (say, for income)? If she is not threatening her parents with violence, they would not respond with violence- but with words, bribes, threat of nonviolent sanctions (grounding), discussion, negotiations, etc.

Now, if the secessionists decide to go to war with arms, certainly it would be only fair to meet them with arms. But that seems to be unlikely to happen to me.

This also can happen in Civil War situations. See: The Velvet Revolution; the Czech Republic split from Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia) without a bloody war. A country can agree to allow a part of it to leave the Union without blood being shed- & the in the modern world, it seems to me unlikely that, if succession were a real & viable option for part of the U.S., that a peaceful solution would not be sought. Negotiations would happen, money would change hands, & we'd find ourselves with two distinct countries that would probably keep working together very closely.

Also, one question your comment raises in my mind is whether one is ethically compelled to recognize the sovereignty of the country in the first place. Is the country being ruled in a way that is oppressive? Are it's policies bad? Does the way that the country is being run threaten your liberty, your money, etc.? Do you simply want to not be ruled by it?

Personally, I didn't ask to be ruled by anyone, & I'm not a big fan of it, so I don't feel a need to be unwaveringly loyal to my government- particularly as I don't support a lot of what they do. I see my duty as being to fight against the injustices perpetuated by the government, & to fight for more freedom from government in general- peacefully, if at all possible.

As I said I admire your stance but I can not support it. Your Idea would lead to the destruction of my nation. The United States is already weaken economically with all it territory. Now you wish them to peacefully let at least 7 states go? Madness. It would cripple our economy even more so. Leave us more vulnerable to potential enemies.

Let not add the United States government would never let a state leave the union. We had this discussion before. It was in 1861. That debate lead to a horrible civil war. The end result was the rebel states where force back into the Union. Do you want a repeat of that? Cause that what going to happen if the those states proceed beyond just angry petitions posting on a website.

Exactly. Because we exist under a Federalist tyranny that needs deposed.

[Agymnum]

As I said I admire your stance but I can not support it. Your Idea would lead to the destruction of my nation. The United States is already weaken economically with all it territory. Now you wish them to peacefully let at least 7 states go? Madness. It would cripple our economy even more so. Leave us more vulnerable to potential enemies.

Let not add the United States government would never let a state leave the union. We had this discussion before. It was in 1861. That debate lead to a horrible civil war. The end result was the rebel states where force back into the Union. Do you want a repeat of that? Cause that what going to happen if the those states proceed beyond just angry petitions posting on a website.

Exactly. Because we exist under a Federalist tyranny that needs deposed.

Without the Constitution and thus the federal government, states rights do not exist (they are first articulated in the Constitution).

Thus, much as you may hate the union I so love, you can't exist without it.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Can we go back to having a king?

[Wisconsin9]

Can we go back to having a king?

No.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Can we go back to having a king?

No.

Aw, but it'll be so much easier!

[Dusk_Kittens]

Scotland.

[Adventus Secundus]

Exactly. Because we exist under a Federalist tyranny that needs deposed.

Without the Constitution and thus the federal government, states rights do not exist (they are first articulated in the Constitution).

Thus, much as you may hate the union I so love, you can't exist without it.

I don't hate the union. I just know it isn't going to last forever, and want to make the break-up as painless as possible when it does occur. And you are wrong in your assertion that the Constitution 'created' state's rights, to wit: The Anti-Federalist Papers. Thus Spake Wikipedia :"The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties."

Indeed, it was concern over the rights of individual 'states' (colonies at the time) that sparked the Revolution, ere ever a concept of American unity existed in the minds of the rebels

[Agymnum]

Without the Constitution and thus the federal government, states rights do not exist (they are first articulated in the Constitution).

Thus, much as you may hate the union I so love, you can't exist without it.

I don't hate the union. I just know it isn't going to last forever, and want to make the break-up as painless as possible when it does occur. And you are wrong in your assertion that the Constitution 'created' state's rights, to wit: The Anti-Federalist Papers. Thus Spake Wikipedia :"The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties."

Indeed, it was concern over the rights of individual 'states' (colonies at the time) that sparked the Revolution, ere ever a concept of American unity existed in the minds of the rebels

I will do my best to preserve the union. The break-up will be painful, and if needed I will make it more so to preserve the union. Honestly, I hate the idea of state's rights. It just annoys me because the idea of anything besides the individual having rights just strikes me as being... wrong? That's like if you gave rights to a corporation. Makes no sense to me.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

*snip*

Is a teenager saying she wants to move out a "threat" to her parents that requires violent force- even if she is, in reality, not old enough to move out & take care of herself, or needed within the family unit (say, for income)? If she is not threatening her parents with violence, they would not respond with violence- but with words, bribes, threat of nonviolent sanctions (grounding), discussion, negotiations, etc.

*snip*

Setting aside the hilarious appropriateness of comparing secessionists to teens throwing tantrums, this comparison actually makes clear why your position is untenable.

First and foremost, people are free to leave a state or the United States. States are not allowed to leave the United States (except perhaps with consent of other states). Secession is similar to the "teenager" in your argument were trying to declare her bedroom (which she shares with a younger sibling) and other parts of her parents' home to belong to her AND declaring that those portions of the home as well as herself and others therein, are outside her parents control. Also secession means others within a state (like the other child) no longer enjoys the rights afforded by the U.S. Constition and is now under the sole authority of the state government (the teenager").

Next, a teenager who is a minor is (absent special circumstances) subject to the authority of parents as a matter of law. If necessary (and no exceptions apply), the government will enforce parental authority -- ultimate by force or threat of force.

Finally, your attempt to illustrate examples of alternatives to ultimate use of force speaks for its own absurdity. (I am not saying force should ever be a first response to secession. It should be the last. It may nonetheless be necessary.) Why should one "bribe" either a minor not to run away from home or a state to stay in the Union? Isn't this rewarding bad behavior? Would this not be unfair to other minors in the house (as it would be to other states and their residents) and encourage such dissension among others in order to get similarly "bribed"? How does "grounding" of a minor that is running away from home work without preventing the minor from running away in the first place? Etc, etc.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Without the Constitution and thus the federal government, states rights do not exist (they are first articulated in the Constitution).

Thus, much as you may hate the union I so love, you can't exist without it.

I don't hate the union. I just know it isn't going to last forever, and want to make the break-up as painless as possible when it does occur. And you are wrong in your assertion that the Constitution 'created' state's rights, to wit: The Anti-Federalist Papers. Thus Spake Wikipedia :"The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties."

Indeed, it was concern over the rights of individual 'states' (colonies at the time) that sparked the Revolution, ere ever a concept of American unity existed in the minds of the rebels

Wikipedia is sometimes a decent source, sometimes misleading, and sometimes plain wrong. This is particularly true when one tries to take a sentence from a Wikipedia article on one subject and parse to try to "prove" a point on another subject.

Regardless, you are correct that the existence of "states" in parts of what is now U.S. territory is undeniable. The "rights" of such states is a different matter (and one not addressed by your Wiki quote).

I know secessionists have an inexplicable (and, especially among defenders of the Confederacy, erroneous) affection for the Anti-Federalists but the Anti-Federalists LOST. The argued against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was ratified over their objections. Moreover, Anti-Federalism died out at least 180 years ago AND has been superceded by other events in U.S. history.

[Frisivisia]

I'll take the Grand Duchy of Occupied North Kentucky and Indiana over the New Reformed Islamic Caliphate of New Pennsylvania and New England any day.

[Libertarian California]

This is the thread I was DEATed on. I don't feel safe returning here.


Anyways, I support Alaskan Independence, and am somewhat sympathetic towards Texan independence. I don't care for the rest.

[Hadian]

.

[Cameroi]

i would support a balkanized peace. not the making of war by any side. i would support a diversity of progressivist nations over a repressive, militarily imposed unification. but i do not support murder in the cause of ideology nor nationalism. not from any side. nor do i believe the sides would likely be a repeat of former events. i would be in favor of an independent northwest. but again, not by anyone killing each other.

[Adventus Secundus]

I don't hate the union. I just know it isn't going to last forever, and want to make the break-up as painless as possible when it does occur. And you are wrong in your assertion that the Constitution 'created' state's rights, to wit: The Anti-Federalist Papers. Thus Spake Wikipedia :"The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties."

Indeed, it was concern over the rights of individual 'states' (colonies at the time) that sparked the Revolution, ere ever a concept of American unity existed in the minds of the rebels

Wikipedia is sometimes a decent source, sometimes misleading, and sometimes plain wrong. This is particularly true when one tries to take a sentence from a Wikipedia article on one subject and parse to try to "prove" a point on another subject.

Regardless, you are correct that the existence of "states" in parts of what is now U.S. territory is undeniable. The "rights" of such states is a different matter (and one not addressed by your Wiki quote).

I know secessionists have an inexplicable (and, especially among defenders of the Confederacy, erroneous) affection for the Anti-Federalists but the Anti-Federalists LOST. The argued against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was ratified over their objections. Moreover, Anti-Federalism died out at least 180 years ago AND has been superceded by other events in U.S. history.

It's late, I'm lazy. Wikipedia is the Macdonalds of sources. Furthermore, might does not make right. A group or an individual (especially in democracy) may be, historically and in the long-term vindicated even if they were ridiculed in their lifetimes. And the success of the Anti-Federalists has no bearing on your point that state's rights somehow didn't exist prior to the Constitution, the which is patently false.
Heck, the Poles lost WWII as surely as any country lost that war, and didn't regain sovereignty until the nineties. Does that have any reflection on their moral rectitude or the worth of their country? No.


"George Clinton, "In Opposition to Destruction of States' Rights"

The... premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm of the United States... But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interests, morals, and politics in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can
never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself...

From this picture, what can you promise yourself, on the score of consolidation of the United States into one government? Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your freedom insecure... you risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you ­ where from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic... "

Hellz bellz...they were RIGHT about quite a few things.

[Free Detroit]

I'm a Minnesota nationalist at my core. We really don't need the rest of y'all: we lose gobs of money from federal taxes, have resources to be self sufficient, are (apart from our 6th congressional district) a well educated and progressive state, have a deep water port at Duluth, make more food than pretty much anywhere else in the country, and would be a fine Scandinavian-style social democracy with a peak standard of living were we to secede. I'd be willing to side with the UP of Michigan, keep the Dakotas as a strategic frontier, and give the land south of the Minnesota River back for sovereign native territory.

As a parting gift, Wisconsin can have Michelle Bachmann.

[Zonolia]

Funny enough I am a self-proclaimed Far-Centre Left Progressive, but if my state, Texas (of the South really), were to ever claim independence then I'd stand behind a ultra-right wing overly-conservative government...yes, I know, hypocritical...