If several states were to vote to secede from the Union tomorrow,

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: If several states were to vote to secede from the Union tomorrow,

and if diplomacy/politics were to fail to resolve the crisis, would you support suppression of the rebellion through military means?

[AlphaCentauri]

1. No, we would just create martyrs and myths like the Alamo

[cliffordu]

2. Let them go. Let them support and defend themselves. No immigraton.

[MADem]

7. Well, that would improve employment--how do you guard the border? nt

[cliffordu]

17. residual teabaggers.

[pampango]

62. How would several states seceding improve employment on either side? n/t

[MADem]

63. Because cliffordu's caveat was "No immigration!"

IF there were no immigration, we'd have to guard the border. You don't do that with german shepherds exclusively. You need people. Ask the former East Germans, they'll tell ya--it takes a lot of people to man a wall dividing a nation.

[pampango]

65. There may be more border guards, but there would be less of something else.

Border guards, though essential, don't produce any wealth. They consume tax dollars, so if you hire a border guard you're going to have to layoff an air traffic controller or a park ranger or an FBI agent. If the government is going to hire those border guards using "magic" money, so they don't have to lay anyone else off, they should just spend the "magic" money now on more park rangers or air traffic controllers without waiting for a new border to be created.

[MADem]

67. Well, those border guards would spend their salary at the local store.

You'd be "priming the pump" as it were.

I'm just working within the confines of clifford's hypothesis. His rule was "no immigration."

[pampango]

69. The border guards would be spending locally, but the air traffic controllers and park rangers

wouldn't be spending any more, if you had to lay them off in order to hire the border guards.

If you were able to hire the border guards without laying off the controllers and rangers, then you would be "priming the pump", but you could do that anyway by just hiring more controllers and rangers to begin with. If the government wants to "prime the pump", it can do it with or without a new country and border.

The idea that creating a new country (and the new border that would go with it) would create employment is only true if you "prime the pump" at the same time by hiring border guards, but you can "prime" it without creating a new country just as easily by hiring people to do other useful things rather than guard a border.

[MADem]

70. Well, that's all well and good, but I'm not working within that fictional construct.

I'm just coloring within cliffordu's "No immigration!" lines that were thrown down upthread. My goal wasn't to "prime the pump." My goal, in this make-believe scenario, is to meet the demands of the creator of this fictional country, who said "No immigration."

[47of74]

3. It would have to depend on why the states were seceding

It would have to depend on why the states were seceding from the Union.

[Occam Bandage]

6. They believe that states have the right to withdraw from the Constitution,

and that benefits of remaining a part of the Federal government no longer outweigh the costs for their state.

[AlphaCentauri]

31. would they keep any nuclear arsenal?

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. So if it was a reason you favored then it would be ok?

But, if not, then it would not be? Either states can secede or not. The reason is irrelevant.

[TankLV]

16. The REASON - IS - totall THE point...

[anonymous171]

4. Yes. If they didn't take them back, the USFG would basically be condoning seccesion.

[Posteritatis]

19. I can't parse that acronym; what is it? (nt)

[anonymous171]

22. United States Federal Government. nt

[Posteritatis]

28. Oh! Duh. Thanks (nt)

[AlinPA]

5. No, but if the secessionists started a shooting war about it, the answer is yes.

I haven't heard anything except the TX governor and Tom Delay talking about it.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Suppose the situation is similar to that of the American Civil War.

The seceding states announce they do not want any violence, but warn that any American military bases that are still occupied and under the control of the American government within the territory of the seceding states past a certain deadline will be considered to be an ongoing act of war.

[jwirr]

34. Wasn't the first shot in the Civil War fired on an American fort by the

South?

[Occam Bandage]

35. Yes. They considered the Federal effort to resupply Fort Sumter,

which controlled Charleston harbor, an act of war. Which is not unreasonable, if one accepts that the South had a right to secede, since if the South had the right to secede it would also have the right to territorial integrity, and a Union attempt to hold a fort within Confederate territory would be an act of war.

[jwirr]

43. Given that most of our military bases are there now the same circum

stances hold true and I would not give them our military so they could use it against us again.

[AlinPA]

45. I would still wait for them to shoot first. They may never do so. But if they did,

it would mean retaliation.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. If Texas/Alaska left we would just invade it for the oil anyways.....

[billyoc]

11. Crush the secession, repeal right-to-work laws, redraw congressional districts

and confiscate the conspiritors lands, just like in the 1860's. This time it will be oil and gas fields instead of plantations.

[JVS]

41. Redraw states. No readmission this time. We'll gerrymander on a state level.

[aquart]

12. United we stand, divided we fall.

They may be stupid enough to want to fall, but I ain't. We stay together.

[Birthmark]

13. I think that States should be...

...granted the Right to secede. Lincoln, imo, was wrong to invade the Confederacy and force them back into the Union. He should have scraped his shoe and moved on.

[AllieB]

14. Tweety crushed some RW TX Congressman with facts that TX is a fed gov $$ recipient

compared to the Blue States. The Red States would become more impoverished than they already are if the federal gravy train came to an end.

[TankLV]

15. It depends on the REASON...

If the REPUKE RELIGIOUS FREAKS illegally took over the Federal Government, then I'd support them TOTALLY.

If these same REPUKE RELIGIOUS FREAKS illgeally wanted to succeed to creat their wacko DESPOTIC NUT JOB FUNDY RELIGIOUS FREAK STATES against the will of the people, then I'd support IMMEDIATE MILITARY RESCUE ACTION to RESTORE the Union...

it totally depends...

[47of74]

18. That's where I am myself

[Occam Bandage]

20. So your opinion on the legality of secession

depends on the political leanings of those seceding?

[TankLV]

30. Not the "politics" but the REASONS...

go read my post again...

[Occam Bandage]

37. Those look like the same reasons to me.

What's the difference, other than who's in the driver's seat?

[Lyric]

21. Nope. Hanging on to states that hate us aren't worth the lives of our kids.

Period.

[OxQQme]

23. Ecotopia

A book about peace loving, ecologically correct peoples who seceded from the corporate, militant state.

[JVS]

44. What if we handled it like Kosovo and merely bombed the shit out of them until they gave up?

[malaise]

24. Wouldn't that be the law? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

25. Why would the law matter for this question?

[ZombieHorde]

26. No, I wouldn't want to see violence. Just let them go. nt

[Reterr]

27. To anyone who thinks just "letting them go" is a good idea

I think that ignores scary geo-political realities. I think it would send an awful message to Russia, China etc. I think that is something that would almost certainly trigger the collapse of the dollar.

[burning rain]

53. Secession of some states...

would likely make the US less bellicose, a good thing for us and the rest of the world. For their part, the newly independent "confederate" states would be too damn poor to wage the kinds of wars their hearts yearn for. However, it's all academic because no state's going to secede. Alas! They're all promises.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. It could be good news for the rest of the US; and perhaps for the secessonists, too.

[LWolf]

32. No. nt

[left is right]

33. let 'em go but

present them with a bill for all Interstate highways within their new borders. put up toll booths at every point that crosses into the new US. Offer no foreign aid at least until they pay for the Interstates

[yurbud]

36. fight for cool states like Alaska and Hawaii, Mississippi & Alabama, not so much

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. Minorities in Miss and AL would be left without federal civil rights protections.

They'd be at the mercy of the majority. We need to keep 'em in the Union.

[yurbud]

47. damn it, you got me there. I don't think they'd bring back slavery though...

using illegal immigrants is cheaper.

[Liberal_in_LA]

50. I think they would bring back a Jim Crow like system. Seriously.

[wolfgangmo]

51. Let minorities migrate.

Keep the borders open initially to allow minorities and others to flee.

I think you would find money flowing out of any state that was serious about that. Any company that was not local would pull all their personel and material out. The same thing happened in Canada when Quebec threatened to leave. The loss of jobs and income drove the vote strongly for staying in Canada and the PC lost.

same thing will happen here.

[tekisui]

38. If it came to that, yes.

But, I don't think it would come to that again.

[JVS]

40. kill em all and let God sort em out!

[WeDidIt]

42. I would support a war effort against such treason absolutely 100%

Without hesitation.

[Alexander]

46. Yes. No state has the right to secede from the Union.

Even Lincoln knew that.

[NutmegYankee]

48. Absolutely! Treason should never go unpunished.

[The2ndWheel]

49. Absolutely not. I wouldn't even try to resolve it at this point

It's like a divorce. The only difference is in trying to keep two people together on the one hand, and 300,000,000 people together on the other. I'm sick of having force alone keeping people living with each other. That's all it ends up being, just a giant waste of energy attempting to keep this whole thing together. Same with taxes. The only reason people keep paying them, whether they want to or not, or whether they agree with what their tax money pays for or not, is because of the penalty for not paying them. What kind of society is worth keeping when it's pretty much the threat of jail that keeps it together? It's always sort of funny with what we'll allow to fall under the category of free choice, and what we'll allow to fall under the category of free choice with a severe penalty if you happen to choose the wrong option.

Not that the problems will go away either way you go. As long as diversity exists, we'll always have the problems. However, if someone wants to go, let that person go. Honestly, if it comes down to suppressing people militarily, what are you really keeping together? If someone wants a divorce, and therapy doesn't keep the couple together, are we going to beat the person into staying with the other one?

[anonymous171]

54. So are you saying that secession is legal?

[The2ndWheel]

59. I guess that depends on who or what says that it's illegal

I would say that the legality of it is as arbitrary as any other law. As long as laws didn't come from God, then they were written by man in particular places and times, and so it then all depends on your point of view. The whole terrorist/freedom fighter thing.

Again, even if it were legal, it's not going to solve anything. It will just create different problems, but then so does making secession illegal. I don't see why it shouldn't be an option though, a viable alternative, if things aren't working, and certainly not at the cost of military suppression.

[burning rain]

52. No.

The states inclined to secede are ones I'd consider us well rid of.

[anonymous171]

55. They are now. What happens when New York wants to secede?

Or California? Since we let the south go, we would have to let them go as well.

[ima_sinnic]

56. the malcontent fundy nutjob "state's right" xtian taliban NEED a place of their own

they are a blight on progressivism, scientific advancement, educational advancement, human rights, economic innovation, social services, freedom of religion, and thoughtful discourse. Let them designate one state as "theirs," raise the money through tent revival meetings to reimburse and relocate those who don't want to stay in "their country," and then seal the borders against them.

Since of course they cannot afford to relocate the several million people who will not want to stay in Braindeadistan, they need to figure out where their "promised land" is--some remote foreign country--and go there. screw them, they need to get lost already.

I would make it a point never to do business in a state that "seceded," even over the Internet. Let the wankers set up their "utopia" of unbridled capitalism, no taxes, and no government services. The dumbasses would be dead within one or two generations, or trying to sneak illegally into the U.S.A. Stupid flag-waving dead-ender asshats.

[960]

57. Of course not.

This nation is nearing the point when it will break up, and I hope it happens peacefully.

[snake in the grass]

58. I say no.

The ones discussing it are totally useless to the union so let them go fend for themselves. After a generation they will suffocate under the weight of their own ignorance and can be reassimilated.

[saltpoint]

60. I'd be willing to sit at the negotiating table a lot longer for California and

Vermont and Washington than I would for South Carolina, Texas, and Kentucky.

Texas is not going to secede. Perry is doing some old-fashioned grandstanding, either to crank up the fundie check-writing machine for his gubernatorial re-election bid against Kay Bailey, or possibly to scuplt a national profile for a potential run at the a Republican nomination, or both.

It's hard to tell what the little weasel is up to. Nice hair, no brains.

But I'm not seeing any State legislature bolting from the Union over the budget, or taxes, or anything else.

[truebrit71]

61. No. If they want to leave, fuck 'em...

...less of my tax money to go those ungrateful bastards...

[davidpdx]

64. I voted yes

No state has a the right to leave the union simply because one dumb governor thinks people pay too much taxes. If we used the reverse reasoning that states should be allowed to secede because they disagreed with Bush going to war while he was President, then maybe, just maybe I would agree. The problem is you can't just leave the union because suddenly you disagree with the government on an issue. Christ that's why we have people in Congress from each state. Texas should stop bitching and complaining.

[Brazenly Liberal]

66. Hell no, let 'em go!

I've never heard secession talk from a state I'd mind losing.

[quaker bill]

68. return them to territory status

No voting senators or house members, no electoral votes, retain control of the territories as US protectorates, but largely let them fend for themselves.

Use force as necessary to dismantle / retrieve any nukes and all other US military equipment (all of it from nukes to sidearms). Close federal offices, layoff or relocate federal staff, and withdraw troops from military bases and close them, remove border patrol operations, shut off federal funds for infrastructure projects, cease Federal law enforcement operations. Shut down and remove equipment from air traffic control facilities. Require visas for their citizens to cross into the US. Make payment of taxes mandatory to cross the border. As they have renounced the constitution, they have also renounced the second ammendment, so their right to bear arms does not exist in the US. Arrest anyone attempting to cross the border with a weapon, confiscate the weapon and destroy it. Charge tariffs, excise taxes or fees on all goods coming from the remaining US states to collect revenue.

Require international shipments to port within the US and be inspected prior to shipment to the territories, assess fees and tarrifs as appropriate for the service. Require all international flights to land and be inspected in the US, folks with appropriate visas may then proceed by car to visit the territories.

In short, just cut them off. Conservatives love to go on about self-reliance, let them try it for a while.

[DevonRex]

71. The land is ours, so yes. I say put the people who vote to secede

on "reservations" in Arizona.

[old mark]

72. Certainly. They have no legal right to secede. Round the leaders up

and kill them all.
On TV like the Chinese.

See how long it takes for the next batch to try again.


mark

[TCJ70]

73. Yes. I think it's somewhere in the constitution...

...that secession isn't legal. So maybe finding the leaders and supporters and putting some sort of exile on them would be appropriate. They obviously don't want to be here...

[JackRiddler]

74. You really think Texas & Georgia are going to do us such a big favor?

I would enter a mutual defense treaty with Mexico (which would be endangered by the new entity) and celebrate the departure of the states that have saddled the rest of the country with the most regressive politics and culture. (Notwithstanding the unfortunate minorities of reasonable people stuck there.)

Anyway, this is so not going to happen - can't believe anyone's taking the secession talk seriously, it's pure political posturing by empty-suit frauds.