• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you oppose secession for ANY reason?

Could secession ever be appropriate?

  • Total voters
    83
Bigfoot 88

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Since many believe there is no right to secession, does that mean you would not support secession regardless of what the federal government did?
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Since many believe there is no right to secession, does that mean you would not support secession regardless of what the federal government did?
Click to expand...

At this point I think secession is a good idea.

An increase in states rights and a decrease in federal power would be ideal for everyone but I don't think that is possible now.
 
I think the principle of succession is good, it keeps an extra check on the federal government and allows states a way to defend themselves against corruption. At this point the federal government has consistently violated so many civil liberties as to render itself illegitimate. It may be to the point that only a mass movement of the states can reduce and reform the corrupted federal government.

Right now, in my opinion, we need to promote and defend states rights and the principles of federalism against the rising trend of authoritarianism in government.
 
As I stated in the other secession thread, because of the make-up of the SCOTUS, secessation CAN NOT HAPPEN.

It WILL NOT HAPPEN.
 
the problem would be the obvious one. Who gets what? The Jesus map is a farce of some demented Limbaugh fan.

Each group would have to have access to the Atlantic and Pacific, the Mississippi, deep water ports, the food belt and industry.

How would the people be moved who wanted to leave. Be compensated for thier loss of job, business or property? Would busineses corporations and industry just suddenly pack up and move?

How would the military be divided? How would short range and medium range nukes be handled. Treaty. What if one group said no?

Government files, agencies, international organizations, companies, infrastructure?

If you think its as easy as drawing a line in the sand think real hard and then think again.
 
marsden said:
As I stated in the other secession thread, because of the make-up of the SCOTUS, secessation CAN NOT HAPPEN.

It WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Click to expand...

See, this is where I start disagreeing with most people. In my opinion people who are willing to secede no longer recognize the SCOTUS or the unconstitutional nature of seceding. Why would they listen to the laws of a government they no longer recognize?
 
I don't see a possible scenario where secession won't lead to war. Our nation is interdependent and connected, and if part of that whole were to suddenly disappear from the greater machine, it will create economic disaster. We will either fight to keep ourselves one nation, or fight over the resources that are suddenly held by a neighboring nation that is, by its very design, hostile to our interests. If you want to destroy this country, embroiling it in a second civil war would be the quickest way to do it.
 
wolfman24 said:
the problem would be the obvious one. Who gets what? The Jesus map is a farce of some demented Limbaugh fan.

Each group would have to have access to the Atlantic and Pacific, the Mississippi, deep water ports, the food belt and industry.

How would the people be moved who wanted to leave. Be compensated for thier loss of job, business or property? Would busineses corporations and industry just suddenly pack up and move?

How would the military be divided? How would short range and medium range nukes be handled. Treaty. What if one group said no?

Government files, agencies, international organizations, companies, infrastructure?

If you think its as easy as drawing a line in the sand think real hard and then think again.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really work like that though.

You're treating it like an amicable divorce but a secession is when one area decides it doesn't want to be part of the whole anymore.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't see a possible scenario where secession won't lead to war. Our nation is interdependent and connected, and if part of that whole were to suddenly disappear from the greater machine, it will create economic disaster. We will either fight to keep ourselves one nation, or fight over the resources that are suddenly held by a neighboring nation that is, by its very design, hostile to our interests. If you want to destroy this country, embroiling it in a second civil war would be the quickest way to do it.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Greenland seceded from the EU amicably and the UK constantly seems on the verge of pulling out too without any talk of war. War would really benefit no one if a secession occurred.
 
Secession is never a good idea. The last time I checked, this was the 'United' States of America. Those who think secession is a viable option, in my opinion, don't really believe that we are united. It shows that the country is not, at heart, in their interests. It shows that they don't really think we are a people united. It shows that they don't believe in freedom, and especially individualism, which is something that I thought was supposed to be a hallmark of Republican ideas. Which also shows the futility and uselessness of their ideas.
 
Succession is treason. The U.S. derives is worlds status solely because it is the largest nation with advanced technology and infrastructure. The successionist argument is inherently hypocritical, as they whine about the tyranny of the majority yet use the same argument to impose their will on those in the state who wish to remain in the union.
 
Just for Texas.
 
Donahue said:
It doesn't really work like that though.

You're treating it like an amicable divorce but a secession is when one area decides it doesn't want to be part of the whole anymore.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point. What about the people in one area that want to be part of the other. They have lives. It would hardly be amicable. It is much more complicated than the howlers think.

This is not a linear subject. We draw a line in the sand and puff it happens. It doesn't ever work out to be that simple.
 
wolfman24 said:
Your missing the point. What about the people in one area that want to be part of the other. They have lives. It would hardly be amicable. It is much more complicated than the howlers think.

This is not a linear subject. We draw a line in the sand and puff it happens. It doesn't ever work out to be that simple.
Click to expand...

You're treating a secession like two people dividing up possessions in a divorce.

It didn't work that way in the Civil War and it wouldn't work that way now.
 
It would be easier (and a lot less bloody) than civil war, so yeah, I'd definitely support secession.
 
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Secession is never a good idea.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a good idea for the American colonists? It wasn't a good idea for Texas?

The last time I checked, this was the 'United' States of America. Those who think secession is a viable option, in my opinion, don't really believe that we are united.
Click to expand...

Do you believe divorce is ever a viable option?

It shows that the country is not, at heart, in their interests. It shows that they don't really think we are a people united. It shows that they don't believe in freedom, and especially individualism, which is something that I thought was supposed to be a hallmark of Republican ideas. Which also shows the futility and uselessness of their ideas.
Click to expand...

Wait, believing in the right of secession goes against individualism and freedom? So I assume Thomas Paine was against those ideals since he pushed for secession?
 
People, the word is secession, not succession.
 
Donahue said:
You're treating a secession like two people dividing up possessions in a divorce.

It didn't work that way in the Civil War and it wouldn't work that way now.
Click to expand...

Ok if you say so.
 
Donahue said:
I disagree.

Greenland seceded from the EU amicably and the UK constantly seems on the verge of pulling out too without any talk of war. War would really benefit no one if a secession occurred.
Click to expand...

Are you under the mistaken impression that the European Union is a single country? This thread is about dissolution of the United States, a single nation that has been that way for more than two centuries. The implications of splitting up the US are far greater than a country leaving the EU.
 
I cannot think of any reasons why it would be ok to secede, but guess if it was REALLY needed then MAYBE. I think the idea that states are trying to leave the union is humorous. It is safe to say that I have not been thrilled with every president that has won the white house, and I have wanted the losers to win before, but i have never had the idea to leave the union, I am guessing that most of this stems from racism.
 
Paschendale said:
Are you under the mistaken impression that the European Union is a single country? This thread is about dissolution of the United States, a single nation that has been that way for more than two centuries. The implications of splitting up the US are far greater than a country leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

:roll:
 
DashingAmerican said:
See, this is where I start disagreeing with most people. In my opinion people who are willing to secede no longer recognize the SCOTUS or the unconstitutional nature of seceding. Why would they listen to the laws of a government they no longer recognize?
Click to expand...

Then there would be government forces at the doors of the seccessionist leaders.

Not a civil war, but a number of SWAT team actions until order was restored.
 
marsden said:
Then there would be government forces at the doors of the seccessionist leaders.

Not a civil war, but a number of SWAT team actions until order was restored.
Click to expand...

Which could possibly breed more dissent.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't see a possible scenario where secession won't lead to war. Our nation is interdependent and connected, and if part of that whole were to suddenly disappear from the greater machine, it will create economic disaster. We will either fight to keep ourselves one nation, or fight over the resources that are suddenly held by a neighboring nation that is, by its very design, hostile to our interests. If you want to destroy this country, embroiling it in a second civil war would be the quickest way to do it.
Click to expand...
You really think now-aday's people would actually authorize a war on one of our states? I think there would be an overwhelming disapproval of the general population to where it would be impossible.
 
Succession would be like a divorce/custody case on steriods, with guns.

Every state contains federal land, most contain federal military bases, missle silos, armories, public infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports subsidized and/or fully paid for by government funds. The power grid of every state in the lower 48 are interconnected, with electricity being bought/sold throughout the nation on a minute-by-minute basis. Same with economic factions, banks, Wall Street, financial intermingling of corporate, private and pension funds.

If it happens, it isn't going to be peaceful and when push comes to shove, I seriously doubt it will happen without civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom