Should states be allowed to divorce the union?

[rhgunguy]

Using Canada, the largest trading partner with America, and Mexico, the second largest trading partner with America, as examples; I think it's obvious that business as usual would be the expected norm, rather than some kind of cessation of trading among the states.

At what point were Canada and Mexico part of the US and said, "the heck with you"? The fact is that we trade with Canada and Mexico because they are established, soverign nations. A state that succeded would be SOL.

hogdogs, what is the base of the nutritonal pyramid? (Hint, it is grains) You do not get enough grain production to feed a southern state until you cross that Mason-Dixon line. I do recall that is one of the things that screwed the south back when their population about equaled that of GA(could be a little off, but hey).

BTW, Ports matter about as much as a fart in the wind when the US Navy comes to town. Besides that, no nation is going to risk PO'ing US government for the chumpchange a state/country could provide.
rhstockupontwinkiesgunguy

I think the larger states could make it on their own. California and possibly Texas could survive as independent countries.

Texas, maybe, but California? HA! What are they going to eat, Napa grapes, seafood(not enough to feed everyone due to anti-commercial fishing laws), Sonoma sno-cones and microchips? The coyotes would eat better on the corpses of starved Californians.

 

[HKuser]

How many times are we going to refight this war, it's over, done, deal with it.

 

[longrifleman]

Yes, and for the reasons outlined in the original Declaration of Independence.

I think the only reason the South failed the first attempt is that they didn't have the moral high ground. This time, it will be very difficult to justify opening fire on thousands of peaceful citizens standing in the open holding copies of the Declaration.

Without slavery, and the tactically stupid move of shooting first, any attempt to use force on folks wanting to leave peacefully will be difficult to sell.

When the old Union very reasonably asks the new govt to assume their apporitioned share of the national debt, leaving may not seem like such a good idea.

 

[hogdogs]

Grain is a grass? We would likey convert some of the bazillions of acres we run to grow cattle hay and grow 3-4 seasons worth each season with our MUCH LONGER growing season. And them ships entering OUR ports will come in loaded. Actually I remember seeing full grain elevators at Baton Rouge... that is the south too right?
Alaskans would survive FINE! Heck they did it for 10's of thousands of years before the whites came in!
Brent

 

[rhgunguy]

Quality grain is no grass. Cattle would graze it and it would not return for years. Again, ask yourself if a foreign ship is going to risk a blockade by the US Navy.

 

[Pat H]

At what point were Canada and Mexico part of the US and said, "the heck with you"? The fact is that we trade with Canada and Mexico because they are established, soverign nations. A state that succeded would be SOL.

My point was that both of the large countries that border America now are the two largest trading partners America has, there's no reason to think that if new sovereign nations formed out of the super-nation state that is the United States there wouldn't be the same trade relationship, or an even better relationship, than either of the aforementioned countries.

hogdogs, what is the base of the nutritonal pyramid? (Hint, it is grains) You do not get enough grain production to feed a southern state until you cross that Mason-Dixon line. I do recall that is one of the things that screwed the south back when their population about equaled that of GA(could be a little off, but hey).

Canada, Argentina, and Australia grow huge amounts of grain; so those commodities are not a problem. My neighbor, here in upcountry South Carolina, has 40+ head of cattle, and there's a large cattle industry in this state since we have the rainfall to graze more cattle per acre than almost any of the well known cattle producing states.

The point being that most states could, if need be, survive without trade with other states. The possible exceptions would be landlocked states such as Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and the like since they depend on shipping through states such as California, Montana (from Canada), and Washington.

It should be obvious that cutting off trade with seceded states because they saw fit to govern themselves shoots the one doing the cutting off in the foot, rather than the target of such a boycott.

 

[Pat H]

When the old Union very reasonably asks the new govt to assume their apporitioned share of the national debt, leaving may not seem like such a good idea.

Actually, that's not a stopper. Negotiations would include how much of the infrastructure within each state was funded, how old it is, and things like how much of the military equipment now owned by the US government would be included, or will all of Cape Canaveral's Space Center remain in place, or will the US government be required to remove it all at their expense.

It would be a two way street, and as I state, a subject of negotiation.

 

[hogdogs]

Grain is not a grass? Man I gotta look up my Ag teacher and let him know...
mono-cotyledon [sp] and all... but we could survive and the blockades will be dealt with...
Brent

 

[rhgunguy]

Canada, Argentina, and Australia grow huge amounts of grain; so those commodities are not a problem. My neighbor, here in upcountry South Carolina, has 40+ head of cattle, and there's a large cattle industry in this state since we have the rainfall to graze more cattle per acre than almost any of the well known cattle producing states.

Get them into the country/state past the US Navy and at the risk of displeasing the US Government.

Answer my question: How is South Carolina going to sweeten the deal for Canada, Argentina, and Australia to the point that they will not need trade with the remaining 49 states? They cannot.

And another question: How is South Carolina going to get that grain to port against a US NAVY BLOCKADE? The Soviets had very little success in Cuba. The US Navy has gotten better and the South Carolina Navy consists of pleasure yatchs and duckboats. Have fun.

 

[HKuser]

So all of the old South states, almost all, if not all, of them recipient states of larger federal receipts that they pay in are just clamoring to run the old battle flag back up the pole? When pigs fly. This is exactly the reason that gun owners get a bad name. The only people eager for the fight are a few "sothrun" romanticists with internet connections. You can't even get a state to propose repealing the 17th Amendment in order to have a say, but elaborate scenarios are being constructed here of the valiant resistance. Poppycock!

 

[The Tourist]

a few "sothrun" romanticists with internet connections

Well, I was born and raised in the north and I think The South got a raw deal.

I'm very tired of people speaking out of both sides of their mouths in the areas of personal freedoms.

For example, The South takes a hit over states rights, and then every liberal places his/her hand on the Bible and vows to protect The Consitution. Within minutes that same leftie lawmaker tries to restrict or repeal The Second.

So who's the hypocite? The leftie or the son of the soil?

It has been said here that Southerners fired the first shot. Twice in the past few years the leftists have tried to get "hate speech" issues rammed through the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Who is doing the most damage? A cannon ball or a communist agenda?

If initiated today, and for the same reasons, I would gladly don the gray. If I'm going to die for an issue I'd rather do it fighting hypocrites who are trying to strip everyone of rights and resistance.

 

[Pat H]

Get them into the country/state past the US Navy and at the risk of displeasing the US Government.

That's not a problem. First, you're assuming that hostilities would be part and parcel of any secession. Since there's no reason for that, it's unlikely. In the example that we all know, some a lot, others only what they learned in government schools, the War Against the South, the rationale for the blockade was two fold. First, the southern states were funding about 80% of the Union government via tariffs; and second, the Confederate Constitution forbade protectionist tariffs and the Union states wanted no country next door with the ability to import goods without the added cost of high tariffs on goods.

Answer my question: How is South Carolina going to sweeten the deal for Canada, Argentina, and Australia to the point that they will not need trade with the remaining 49 states? They cannot.

First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "sweeten the deal". Since both Argentine and Canada can produce more grain than they can sell now to the US, why would they not be willing to sell as much grain as possible to any seceded state or group of states?

And another question: How is South Carolina going to get that grain to port against a US NAVY BLOCKADE?

Asked and answered. There's little likelihood of a blockade being attempted. If there were, that would be dealt with as necessary.

The Soviets had very little success in Cuba. The US Navy has gotten better and the South Carolina Navy consists of pleasure yatchs and duckboats. Have fun.

We're not talking about the Southern states exclusively. The first Secession Conference was held in Vermont.

There are some things to consider, since warfare is on your mind. The facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Savannah River, South Carolina represent a large nuclear capability, and many large warships are constructed at Pascagoula, Mississippi which is a port of some size. The two largest Army bases (personnel wise) are located in the south, Fort Benning and Fort Hood, and there's substantial Air Force capability within each state. In fact, the south has disproportionately large representation of trained military personnel that are extremely loyal to their states of origin.

A military response to any secession is really out of the question.

 

[longrifleman]

The only people eager for the fight are a few "sothrun" romanticists with internet connections

The most vocal secessionists I've heard of lately are from Vermont. Most of the New England states toyed with the idea before the south actually did it, so the idea is nothing new.

One reason I think this is worth considering is the example we have from the old USSR. Large political entities can fall apart, and we may not have as much warning as we might think.

As for blockades and such, would you be willing to kill just because your neighbor wanted to be part of another country? Would you kill to preserve the power of the current elites? Why?

 

[HKuser]

I'm tired of it too. Every Southern state made it perfectly clear that the states' right they were seceding over was the right to hold humans as chattel slaves (even if the Union didn't mention slavery at the beginning of the war). If that is not the ultimate denial of personal freedoms then what is? Who's the hypocrite?

Well, I was born and raised in the north and I think The South got a raw deal.

I'm very tired of people speaking out of both sides of their mouths in the areas of personal freedoms.

For example, The South takes a hit over states rights, and then every liberal places his/her hand on the Bible and vows to protect The Consitution. Within minutes that same leftie lawmaker tries to restrict or repeal The Second.

 

[hogdogs]

I also would add that the likely hood of any one state trying this is NIL. But if a conglomerate of states were to abandon all the foo-foo states and gubmint the current gubmint would IMPLODE before any such battle! The north eastern small states and kookyfornia would be the ones left wanting. And I doubt the south would sell more of our commodities than we can afford to lose such as is happening with china buying up our steel and such...
Brent

 

[HKuser]

Again, no state will even ask for their Senate representation back, but they're going to start lobbing nukes? At least the founders used war as a last resort. What lunacy.

 

[The Tourist]

Who's the hypocrite?

We do so in hindsight.

For example, I'm sure that as a student of history you know about hydraulic mining. It was a horrible practice. It left the land so scarred that most governments stopped the practice by the 1880's.

As we live now, not many of us seem to be concerned by the flagrant overuse of fuel, slob hunting, building on flood plains, old computers in landfills, decades of smog, and the very loose pollution restrictions of the airline industry.

Keeping that in mind, some future generation is going to look at your lifestyle and comment in a future forum, "I just bought some land formerly owned by criminal named HKuser. There was so much styrofoam, mercury, lead and toxic plastic on the property that it took a Haz-Mat unit to break ground. Such a man would be imprisoned today."

And that's just one thing. My own cycle club now has bi-laws for conduct I engaged in during the 1970's. We have "tread lightly" restrictions where folks used to openly slight mud on 4-wheelers. My Dad and friends used to openly fire rifles inside the Milwaukee city limits to shoot rats in dumps.

Heck, a girl once slapped me. Should we hunt her down under the Lautenberg Act and strip her of most of her rights?

Before you castigate the antebellum south, let's post your life story right up front, here.

 

[HKuser]

So, are you saying that the antebellum South either didn't know, or had no intention to strip the rights of their slaves? Weren't they penalized for it in the Constitution and the slave trade restricted? Hey it's just like shooting rats at the dump. Whatever. I can see where this is going. Wow!

 

[The Tourist]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. You're looking at a condition with modern eyes. Some of our Presidents own slaves. It is said that Jefferson fathered a child by a slave whom he loved.

By the way, have you cleaned that trash out of your garage yet? It's a felony in the 23rd century...

 

[longrifleman]

Again, no state will even ask for their Senate representation back,

Agreed. At this point, this is just idle internet blather; an interesting way to pass a rainy day. The future may get "interesting".

I think the fault lines in the country aren't that hard to spot if you look. The southwest as one area, think Aztlan. The old south, with possibly Florida as a separate entity. Maybe the south 2/3. The new england states as their own area. They better hope for good trade relations, because self-sufficient food production may be a problem. I'm not sure how the midwest and mountain west might shake out.

No country can exist for long without the consent of the governed. Getting that across to the ruling class usually gets bloody, but it doesn't have to. It probably would take a lot of blood here; people with power hate to give it up.